Stop Union Annex

Still Kicking

2009-02-05T17:13:00.000-08:00

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.

Tri-Town Tempest in a Teacup

2008-09-14T14:22:00.000-07:00

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.

Tick Tick Tick

2008-07-20T16:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Careful What You Ask For

2008-06-22T12:35:00.000-07:00

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.

Kudos! - Whoopsie! Never mind!

2008-05-14T19:49:00.001-07:00

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!

Google Knows

2008-04-06T23:07:00.000-07:00

Machinations

2008-04-06T11:27:00.000-07:00

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

What you're missing

2008-01-26T21:23:00.000-08:00

Stop by MuskratHunt and join in by all means. The last few days of the election have spawned some truly hilarious moments. Ah, small town politics. Sometimes civil, frequently savage, never dull.

Who is Trisa Baxter?

2007-12-29T21:58:00.000-08:00

Occupation: Realtor

I've said my piece before about realtors in Colorado.

Nuf Sed.

Where do you live?

2007-12-29T08:41:00.000-08:00

In case anyone missed it - there was a democratic election held recently. New City Council members were elected by a majority of the voters. These new Council members are doing what the majority of Longmont wants. If you really think you can successfully run a recall, good luck - you've got the majority of the city against you. Perhaps a good dose of humility is what's called for - and what you'll GET if you're foolish enough to try.

The Union Annex Referendum movement was successful because the PEOPLE stood up, not because any Council member had anything to do with it. Union is a fatally-flawed project and I believe the LifeBridge/4C corporation withdrew their annexation request because they knew quite well they were going to lose the election and the negative opinion would have followed them into Weld County. Hard to say you're 'working with the community' when said community throws you out.

I'm hearing a lot of chatter coming from the folks that lost in the last election - these same folks can read the writing on the wall about the next presidential election. You can stand on the beach and shout all you want - the tsunami is coming. Longmont is a microcosm of America - and both are fed up with crony capitalism and taxpayer ripoffs to stuff the bloated bellies of the elites. You think it's bad now? Best stock up on antiacid - you're going to need it.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!
---
Side note: Thanks to all that called with support - Keep waking up Longmont - I love ya!

Always Look for the Union Label

2007-12-18T18:19:00.000-08:00

So now LifeBridge doesn't want to be Annexed? Talk about an 'act of God'...! Or were more earthly reasons involved? Could it maybe beeeeee.... no, I won't say Satan, but a certain amount of evil is surely at work.

Could a NO vote look bad? How would the folks in Weld county regard that? Ahh hah... maybe this cut-n-run move is more about image than anything else.

A letter sent to the community by the 4C/Elders (same thing) tries to put a good face on this move, but it's clear-and-simple a dodge.

The fact that Rick Rusaw (Marilyn Musgrave's choice for religious backup) didn't sign this letter makes it clear it's not his leadership behind it.

The bottom line? The withdrawal is all about keeping the 'good guy' label pasted on this project - neatly (but not completely!) covering up the rape and pillage of Longmont's tax revenues.

Deface the State

2007-12-14T19:20:00.000-08:00

The following pretty much sums it up neatly:

From: Jon Kanas
To: Longmont LifeBridge
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: [LongmontLifeBridge] Face the State headline...

Good Afternoon,

Perhaps I'm missing something here; but why does Face the State's editorializing matter? Is Face the State a publication of significant influence? I would like to believe that I am a reasonably well-informed Colorado resident, and I've never heard of it before.

--
Best Regards,
Jon
==============
Thank you Jon. Couldn't have said it better myself. Clean, precise and without rancor.

WHO?

Where the Soul is

2007-12-14T19:14:00.000-08:00

I'm so proud to be the resident of a city that had the strength to stand up to powerful people who sought to use Longmont for their own enrichment and agendas. Thank you, Longmont. Thank you for signing the petition. Thank you for electing a city council majority who generally cares about individuals just trying to do their best to live their lives successfully, raise their kids responsibly, and contribute to the betterment of their hometown. And thank you in advance for voting to repeal this annexation should the item remain on the ballot.

My only disappointment is that LifeBridge Church apparently still has no comprehension that creating a "ministry community" as described by LifeBridge's minister Rick Rusaw on its 348-acre property is fundamentally against the foundation of our country. It makes no difference if the religious community is in Longmont, Weld County, Ave Maria in Florida, or anywhere else. Americans are no longer about tribes conquering tribes. At least I hope we're not. If one set of religious dogma has to dominate all others, then our world would be better off without religion. The spirit lives in the soul, not in a place.

Kaye Fissinger
Longmont, CO

Muskrats Behind the Pulpit

2007-12-06T20:21:00.000-08:00

If you have any doubts about which side of the fence good ole Rev Fred's on.... read on.

From the Times-Call archive (sorry, no link!)(golly!)

Paper: Daily Times-Call, The (Longmont, CO)
Title: Cheers and jeers
Story by Ben Ready • The Daily Times-Call
Date: November 30, 2005
Political heavyweights, protesters greet president in Denver

President Bush covered a lot of ground Tuesday in a 19-minute speech during a fundraising event at the Brown Palace Hotel that added $450,000 to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s re-election campaign.

Though he didn’t stay for the $1,000- a-plate lunch, Bush kicked off the event by stressing his and Musgrave’s shared stances on such issues as the war in Iraq, tax cuts, immigration enforcement, abortion, gay marriage and family values.

(*SNIP*)

Ben Ready can be reached at 303-684-5326, or by e-mail at bready@times-call.com.
(not anymore, Ben's moved on)(golly!)

The Rev. Rick Rusaw’s prayer

Excerpts from the prayer The Rev. Rick Rusaw of LifeBridge Church in Longmont gave at President Bush’s luncheon fundraiser for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave:

“Father ... thank you for Congresswoman Musgrave, for her character, her faith. ... Father, thank you for President Bush and for his strong resolve and his character that’s been shaped by his faith.

---
And people scoff when I suggest that the Union Annex might have something to do with politics.

Does the price of the houses in the littlest holy city make sense now?

Here Comes the Hate

2007-12-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

Just lovely. Encouraging to know some of them can write.

Mene Mene

2007-11-29T21:27:00.000-08:00

Matthew chapter 21

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them
that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables
of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called
the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Price of Fishwrap Going Up

2007-11-24T08:29:00.000-08:00

I'm impressed to see this story in the paper...

So Lehman Comm wants $164K in tax 'abatements' from Berthoud... hm.

What's an abatement? The Investor Dictionary defines it as:

"A reduction of taxes or an exemption from taxes granted by a local government on a piece of real property for a specified length of time."

$164K though? Does Berhoud have that kind of scratch to spare? I mean... there's a very expensive election coming. Their favorite party will need all the help they can to weather the perfect storm they've created.

Or could this be preparation for The Dark Years to come? Stockpiling massive amounts of fishwrap and ink to write 'investigative' stories about our next President?

Berthoud residents are well-advised to contact City Hall and get the facts on why the Council would even consider this.

Twain speaks to today from the past

2007-11-18T15:21:00.000-08:00

The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Updated
By Chris Rodda
Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:40:29 PM EST

I haven't been able to do much writing lately because I've been laid up with a broken foot, so the next part of my "real Thomas Jefferson" series will have to wait until next week. I did come across something interesting recently while doing some other research, however, and thought the readers here might appreciate it.

Everyone is familiar with the song The Battle Hymn of the Republic, but I wonder how many are familiar with Mark Twain's version, written in 1901 during the Philippine-American War, as a statement against American imperialism. I find Twain's version, recorded by the Chad Mitchell Trio as The Battle Hymn of the Republic Brought Down to Date, to be as relevant today as it was when written, and think it should be revived.

(Sung to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic)

Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger's wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on.

I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have builded him an altar in the Eastern dews and damps;
I have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps --
His night is marching on.

I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
Lo, Greed is marching on!"

We have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;
Greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
O, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
Our god is marching on!

In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom -- and for others' goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich --
Our god is marching on.

Frederick 'Rick' Rusaw

2007-11-18T13:30:00.000-08:00

I have no idea how the Denver Post got this photo... every time I've tried, the film has turned out blank... and I'm honestly afraid to take anything digital near him... with that kind of karmic energy he can probably blow up stuff by just looking at it.

Why I Blog

2007-11-18T12:54:00.001-08:00

Our local 'news'paper, the Times-Call, seems to do a fair job of presenting opinions from both sides, at least on the Opinions page.

However, look at the columnists they run:

Regular Columnists

Bill O'Reilly - Conservative
Charles Krauthammer - Conservative
George F. Will - Conservative
James P. Pinkerton - Conservative
Mona Charen - Conservative
Anne Applebaum - Centrist
David S. Broder - Centrist
Ellen Goodman - Progressive

5:3 is not what I'd call 'fair and balanced' - of course, in the wild-eyed 'post 9-11 world' we live in, I suspect the loons on the right are thinking something along the lines of:

"Well!? Be happy we let you talk at all - isn't that ENOUGH? Thank your godless souls we don't just line you up and shoot your traitorous asses, be happy we let you live in our glorious theocracy!"

And much worse. Think I'm making that up? Go check out Powerline and Little Green Footballs - those psychotic clowns would start a civil war today just to try out their new Testosterone-powered assault shotguns.

If you don't think we folks on the left are being fairly represented, drop the paper a line:
opinion@times-call.com
give em my regards.

Vote to Repeal LifeBridge Union Annex

2007-11-17T14:02:00.000-08:00

Re Butt All

2007-11-03T20:33:00.000-07:00

What’s in it for LifeBridge?
What they pray you don’t know.

First, since it’s a loudly-brayed talking point on both sides (and far be it from me to show disrespect to the jawbones of asses), I am Christian, by definition. I accepted Christ as my savior in my twenties and I believe he was the Son of God*. Okay? Can we put the religious aspect aside now? Please? Especially since it’s a cross stapled to a red herring. Also, my family and I have lived in Longmont at least eleven years and I own a house. The oft-repeated jingo that the Referendum movement is an out-of-town effort is really annoying. I haven’t seen ‘christians’ lie this much since Jim Baker (oh, and Ted Haggard and… well, you get the idea.)

I am not against the LifeBridge Union annexation because I hate the church. Churches I’m just fine with. It’s cynical ‘faith-based organizations’ (their words) that try to make faith into an industry that make me rend my shirt and beseech the heavens. Add on their alignment with the most divisive social philosophies in two centuries and you’ve got an unholy stinker. Smells so bad the ol’ faith factory is losing members – and that ‘impacts the bottom line’ – can’t have that.

Now we discover that our Lord is in the real estate business – and with a Passion. However, the figure being nailed up this time is the City of Longmont taxpayer. Heck, I’m into a little piercing, but I draw the line at nails through the hands (and wallet!) Worse yet, this figurative cruxifiction won’t even yield a transformation. Nope, straight to hell, handbasket not included. The costs from a botched development (in Longmont? Say it ain’t so!!) could run as high as twenty million dollars. Ouch. We’ll need nailguns to get that much crucifying done on schedule.

Why do I see Romans at the door with carpentry gear? I think Jesus sure would. “Think of me as the least of you.” Just the fact that the papier-mache-puppethead corporation, 4Cs asked for less than ten percent low-income housing (and then tried to ‘be nice’ and withdrew it) tells me the King of Kings wouldn’t be welcome in Union unless he had a Platinum card. Why, his kids wouldn’t even be able to sit down in the city schools (assuming He didn’t want his daughter inculcated in a church-based school) due to the overcrowding and ongoing budget cuts – yep, 4Cs don’t want to support the schools of the town they’d putatively be ‘improving.’ I guess ‘improving’ is a relative term. Besides, kids wear out the knees in jeans fast enough.

The ironically-named Union project (in the state infamous for Ludlow? is that some kind of sick winger humor?) hinges on the price of water. Millions of dollars. Our dollars. Our water. Once given it’s not coming back – and they will want more. I know baptismal fonts use a good bit of water, but that’s one heck of a lot of dunking. They’ll need conveyor belts. Oh, and monogrammed towels.

The 4Cs called the city extortionists when they wanted to consider their two huge projects (yes, there’s more than one!) as one. Now they’re trying to say ‘We love you Longmont,’ – it’s like a scene out of an abusive marriage. I think it’s time for an intervention, don’t you?

One last thing, please stop trying to pretend LifeBridge has been in Longmont for a hundred years. They’re an offshoot (charismatic kudzu if you will) of First Christian church - the original owners of the church. Sorry, organizational history isn’t transferrable kids. Nice try, had a lot of gravitas, but no amount of repetition is going to make that true.

* as I've grown older and learned more, I begin to think he was -a- son of God - why would an infinite being only call ONCE? That's bonkers.

Truth in Art

2007-10-25T20:59:00.000-07:00

Christoph Niemann

By Any Means

2007-10-21T17:30:00.000-07:00

Reconstructionists in Michigan
By Ed Brayton
Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:50:23 AM EST

I was having a discussion with the pastor of a relatively liberal (in both the theological and political sense) Christian church in Lansing recently and I asked him if he was familiar with the Okemos Christian Center. He replied that he was not. I was a bit surprised that he was unaware of this fast growing congregation, also known as the Living Water Church of God, that had made the local newspapers as a result of its lawsuit against Meridian Township for denying a permit to build a new 35,000 square foot facility that would house a Christian school for nearly 300 students. I was not surprised, however, at his reaction when I mentioned that I had brought them up because they are a reconstructionist church; his eyes got big and he was clearly a bit taken aback by this news as he simply muttered, "Wow...."

In order to understand the pastor's reaction, we must first ask the obvious question: what is reconstructionism? This term is often used interchangeably with other terms like dominionism, theonomy and theocracy. Let me offer two definitions at two different levels of analysis. Longer, more detailed definition: Reconstructionism is a particular type of reformed, or Calvinistic, theology that is based primarily on the work or RJ Rushdoony, who drew on the work of Cornelius Van Til. Theologically, it is defined as presuppositionalist (meaning they argue from the position that no argument can be coherent without being based in Christian epistemology), post-millenialist (meaning they believe that Christ will only return after the establishment of genuinely Christian societies on Earth through massive conversion of the population, and theonomist, meaning that they believe in establishing God's rule as a matter of law.

Shorter, simpler definition: Reconstructionism is the belief that the Bible should determine the civil and criminal law of the nation.

It's also important, I think, to spell out what reconstructionsts are not, or perhaps more accurately, to distinguish between what we might call the mainstream religious right and the Christian reconstructionists. Your average religious right follower of, say, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, are likely not reconstructionists. They may refer to the Bible in order to support their political views on gay rights, for example, but that alone does not make them reconstructionists for two reasons.

First, because most of the religious right is premillenialist, not postmillenialist; that is, they believe that Christians will be raptured (taken up to heaven) before the terrible end time events happen; reconstructionists, as mentioned above, are postmillenialist and believe that they must work to establish Christian rule on Earth before the end times can begin. Second, because even most of the rank and file followers of religious right ministers like Falwell and Robertson would not accept the establishment of the entire Mosaic law in this country. They may look to the Bible to support their views on some legal issues, but they won't go as far as to institute the death penalty for the vast array of things the Old Testament commands.

It should also be noted that reconstructionists do not advocate any sort of coup or violent overthrow of society. They take a very long term view of how society is to be reconstructed and they view evangelization as the primary means of achieving their goals. Their goal is to convince enough people to believe as they do that they will eventually be in the majority and in a position to pass laws that will create a Biblical theocracy in the United States. As the Okemos Christian Center website says:

The Christian believes the earth and all its fullness is the Lord's-that every area dominated by sin must be "reconstructed" in terms of the Bible. This includes, first, the individual; second, the family; third, the church; and fourth, the wider society, including the state. We therefore believe fervently in Christian civilization. We firmly believe in the separation of church and state, but not the separation of the state-or anything else-from God. We are not revolutionary; We do not believe in the militant, forced overthrow of human government. We have infinitely more powerful weapons than guns and bombs-We have the invincible spirit of God, the infallible word of God, and the incomparable gospel of God, none of which can fail.

Let us not, however, make too much of this. That is simply a matter of means, not ends; and it is the ends they seek that should be feared by anyone who values freedom. Theocracy is the polar opposite of a liberal democratic society that values individual rights and the reconstructionists don't hide their intention to use the means of democracy to acheive their goal of destroying the very idea of a pluralistic and free society. Gary North, one of the most influential Christian reconstructionist leaders, minced no words in a 1982 article:

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

The notion that there is no neutrality, no pluralism, is a key idea in reconstructionism. From their perspective, a society is either Godly or anti-God, period. If a nation does not follow the Biblical law, they are condemned by God. Imagine for a moment the sort of society we would become should they succeed. Homosexuals would be stoned to death (Leviticus 18:22). So would women who are not virgins on their wedding day, blasphemers, heretics, witches and a whole host of others.

Indeed, stoning is advocated with disturbing glee by North, who wrote an article listing enough reasons why we should start stoning criminals again to make the Taliban beam with pride. First, he noted, "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Well that's fiscally conservative, I suppose, but more importantly he liked how it brought communities together, noting that "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." But he's just warming up. Finally, he says, "by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan."

The Okemos Christian Center has close ties to North and to Rushdoony, the founder of the reconstructionist movement. Pastor Craig Dumont has written articles for the Chalcedon Foundation, the most influential reconstructionist organization in the country. He was a senior fellow with the Center for Cultural Leadership, run by reconstructionist pastor Andrew Sandlin. The Center frequently brings in reconstructionists, including Gary DeMar, Sandlin and many others, to speak.

Perhaps most disturbing is that Rep. Mike Rogers sent a letter last year (see it reproduced here) praising the Okemos Christian Center on its 15th anniversary. In that letter he praised them as a "bright light of hope and faith" and a "shining example of caring for others." He further praised them for their "fiften years of ministry and promoting God's word and for being "an example to people everywhere that that a commitment to God and ministry can overcome the perils of the world."

Pastor Craig DuMont of the Okemos Christian Center was invited several times to respond to questions and to state his beliefs in his own words. He agreed to an email interview and was sent a list of questions. Three times over the course of several weeks he promised to answer them, but apparently decided not to do so. Calls to Rep. Rogers' office went unreturned as well.

Full discussion: story/2007/10/17/115023/57

Time for a change

2007-10-21T10:18:00.001-07:00

This from YourHub:

Out With Longmont's Old Political Machine

Contributed by: Kathleen Gould on 10/21/2007

There are many of us who have lived in Longmont for years who are well aware of the way politics work in this town, and are we fed up with it. The old money families of Longmont and their cronies who believe they own this town and have the inherent right to run it. Among their group are landowners, realtors, developers and the family who has owned the newspaper here for years.

People with money and a controlled media equal power. For years that has proven successful in getting their people elected. Combine that with a city manager appointed by their politicos 14 years ago and kept in office by their successors. Their city manager, who crafts the city's budget and annually sets the agenda for this city making sure things get done the way they want.

Check this year's line-up: Gabe Santos, Bonnie Finley, Aaron Rawlins and Roger Lange. All are hand picked, groomed and sold to the voters by the political machine that has controlled elections here for years. Each of them willing to promote the realtors and developers. And what will the voters get in return? A city infrastructure that is slowly deteriorating, a growing gang problem, depressed property values along with lower city revenues, and an indifferent council that looks the other way.

It's time for the citizens of Longmont to say no to this group. It is time for change. This year's council election gives us opportunity for change. We are electing a Mayor and three council seats. We citizens of Longmont have the first real opportunity in years to take our town back and elect those who have our interests at heart. We have the opportunity to move our city in the necessary direction. Say no to the old politics and yes for change.

What if...

2007-10-20T13:21:00.000-07:00

... what if the LifeBridge Church was a Muslim church asking for all these tax breaks?

Think it couldn't happen?

This story from the Los Angeles Daily Times shows that fundamentalist (or fundament - mentalists) is always a bad thing and a nimby issue.

-------

Islamic sect faces resistance to building mosque, convention site in rural town
BY DAVID DISHNEAU, Associated Press
LA Daily News

Article Last Updated:10/19/2007 08:43:24 PM PDT

WALKERSVILLE, Md. - A Muslim group's plan to build a mosque and convention site on a 224-acre farm has met with resistance from many residents of this rural, overwhelmingly Christian town who fear its tranquility and security may be jeopardized.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA insists it will be a friendly neighbor, but its proposal - including an annual national gathering of thousands of Ahmadis - could be blocked by a measure under consideration by the town commissioners.

"Muslims are a whole different culture from us," said the mayor, Ralph Whitmore, taking a break at his livestock feed store. "The situation with the Muslims is a touchy worldwide situation, so people are antsy over that."

Two days after Ahmadiyya leaders fielded questions at a public forum in August, town Commissioner Chad Weddle introduced a zoning amendment that would prohibit places of worship, schools and private clubs on land zoned for agriculture - including the farm the Ahmadis have contracted to buy.

If the five commissioners approve the measure in a vote expected as early as next week, the Ahmadis could be blocked from building a mosque on the site. Even if the amendment fails, the group still would need a special exception to proceed - their request for one is pending before the town's planning commission.
To some, Weddle's amendment smacks of discrimination.

"The situation indicates this is an action that is being directed toward one specific faith community and, as such, that makes it highly suspect," said Roman P. Storzer, a Washington attorney who has been retained by the land's prospective seller, David Moxley.

Muqtedar Khan, a political science professor at the University of Delaware, said the blunt opposition voiced by some Walkersville citizens is reminiscent of the persecution Ahmadis have endured in Pakistan. There, they are forbidden to practice their religion because they believe there was a prophet after Muhammad - Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who died in 1908.

"It is quite ironic," Khan said, that the Ahmadis - allowed to worship freely in the United States - "are suffering a backlash because of their association with Islam."
But Syed Ahmad, a federal economist who is managing the Walkersville project for the group, said the persecution in Pakistan is far worse.
"Here, people are civilized and they get up and they talk and they oppose you," Ahmad said, "but they're not going to kill you."
Ahmad, who emigrated from Pakistan in 1980, says members of his community won't go where they're not wanted. The group's leaders have gone door-to-door to persuade Walkersville residents that Ahmadis are not terrorists.

Read the rest at the LA Daily Times

So, let me get this straight, if it was a Christian church, they'd be okay with it?

Yeah, that's Amurakkan thinkin.

Personally, I don't like the idea of any religion having control over a living space, it puts them inextricably into the political realm - where they clearly do not belong.

Calling all ex-LifeBridge members

2007-10-18T21:27:00.000-07:00

If you are a member of the LifeBridge church who's left due to the brouhaha over the Union Annex, we'd love to hear from you.

Please write to doogwray@gmail.com with any info you'd care to send.

We'd love to talk to you and we guarantee your anonymity.

Thank you.

Push Poll in Progress

2007-10-14T16:24:00.000-07:00

Well, the Mayor and the 'Bridgers must be sweatin it a little bit - I just got a push-poll that gave you two choices (over and over):

"The mayor and council did a great job, I should vote for it"

"The referendum people got 6000+ sigs, I should vote against it"

The order of the questions, the location of the company:

Braun Research
3035 Directors Row
Memphis, TN 38131-0420

800-332-9191

makes it patently obvious who's behind this survey - LifeBridge.

Other religious looney toons seem to prefer Braun. The president of the company is very big in the United Church of Christ. An online degree company (read 'diploma mill') has helped Braun Research)

Here's hoping they hear enough NO's to just repeal the Annexation.

Preaching Politics from the Pulpit - since 1985

2007-10-14T12:24:00.000-07:00

Reproduced from the Daily Times Call Tuesday January 22, 1985

Political stakes high in temple vote
By JOHN FRYAR
Times-Call Staff Writer

The fight over Bethel Temple's proposal for a new church probably will not end tonight when the City Council decides whether or not to grant an exception to building height restrictions.

Council members may be defending their votes in weeks to come in this municipal election year.

"If I had a city councilman that voted against God and voted against God's church, I could never vote for him again," Bethel Temple's Pastor James Miller told persons attending a 10:45 a.m. service Sunday. "I could never vote for him. You, you could do what you want to, but I couldn't do it. I wouldn't vote for any man that's anti-God."

If Bethel Temple's building height variance is denied, no more churches more than 30 feet tall will be built in Longmont, "unless we elect city councils that are not inclined to have such narrow views," Miller is heard saying in a Bethel Temple recording of his Sunday sermon.

"Your’re not voting against Jim Miller. You're telling the Almighty God you don't like His church, and I wouldn't do it. People that do that sometimes grow daisies above their body because God gets tired of it."

In an earlier 8 a.m. service Sunday -also taped- Miller said, "Now, I don't think... that we need to sit and allow ungodly people to rule on councils. If we have people that are anti-church, I think - I'm going to say this now before a vote - I think that if a man or a woman voted against a church, I think they ought to be voted out of office."

"They should never be allowed to hold an office, never be allowed to rule in city government. We need godly men and women who rule in government,'' Miller said.

Church supporters are not the only ones trying to put tonight's council decision into a political context, council members report.

For example, one man living on Crawford Circle wrote Councilwoman Diane Strachan earlier this month: "At times I perceive your position on this matter as: I'll do what I need to do to get re-elected. If in fact that is your position, I can assure you I will work for your defeat in the next election with all possible vigor."

A woman living on Winslow Circle wrote Strachan, "It seems to me this whole thing has turned into a political issue - i.e., as to who will vote for you in the next election. If in fact you decide this issue in this way, then it is my intention to insure that you do not get re-elected, or any candidates you endorse. I hope to be working for your interests in the next election."

The seats of Mayor Bill Swenson and Councilmen Larry Burkhardt, John Caldwell and Tom McCoy are up for election this year. The terms of Strachan and Councilmen Basil Irwin and Dan Benavidez do not expire until 1987.

Buildings in single-family residential zones – such as the site of the proposed church northwest of Pace Street and East Fifth Avenue - can be no taller than 30 feet high, unless the City Council grants an exception. Bethel Temple proposes to build a church building with a 51-foot-high sanctuary roof line and a 60-foot-high roof cap, bell tower ana spire extending above that.

Miller said Sunday that opponents to the church's plans are “stupid" and said Bethel Temple's lawyers cannot find another instance of a church ever being rejected by a city council anywhere in the country because of its height.

He said Bethel Temple is being persecuted and said, "There's lots of people that are for us in this city. We've got a lot of enemies because there's a lot of devils running around today The world's got devils everywhere. But greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world. And if this kind of stupidity goes on in this city forever, there won't be any churches built, because humanists and godless, wicked people will keep churches from going up," Miller told his congregation.

But he promised that the church eventually will be built, even if it has to go on another site: "So mark it down, Longmont, get ready for a big Bethel Temple. We're coming."

Council members have said the issue they must face is height -not the nature of Bethel Temple or the square footage of the church building. But Miller on Sunday put the issue in broader terms. He characterized a vote against the church plans as a vote against God.

"And I want to tell you, it is dangerous to vote against God Almighty," Miller said at the 10:45 a.m. service. "You're not voting against Jim Miller. You're telling the Almighty God you don't like His church, and I wouldn't do it. People that do that sometimes grow daisies above their body because God gets tired of it."

But Miller urged his congregation not to get discouraged and not to hate their enemies. He said to "love the lost. Don't, don't be angry. Don't, don't, don't hate the people that are against us. Pray for them and if you meet them, love them."

Issue discussed at services
Bethel Temple Pastor James Miller Monday declined to comment on his church's request for a variance, or to respond to the latest city planning staff analysis of the theatre request.

In a brief prepared statement, Miller said, All have to say is that the staff conclusions are being reviewed by our planner and our architect and after they have studied them, they will make their presentation accordingly at the hearing Tuesday night.

"I haven't had time enough to study everything of it (the city staff analysis) enough to draw any conclusions yet," he said Monday.

Last Friday, Miller said he could not talk about the issue without consulting with his attorney. And he told members of his congregation Sunday that the brief statement he had prepared for Monday would be "all I'm allowed to say... I cannot answer opponents now."

At the request of the Daily Times-Call, Miller and the church did provide tape recordings of Miller's discussions of the height issue at 8 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. services Sunday.

Miller emphasized, however, that those taped discussions should be taken in the context of someone talking to his "family" about the issue and not as a presentation intended for the general public.

In the 8 a.m. service itself, Millersaid to members of the congregation: "Well, I can say (these, things about the issue) to you We're home. We're in our own family. This is our own house this morning. We’re not saying this to the city, we’re saying this to our family."

Representatives of the Committee Of Concerned Citizens - the group opposing the height exception did consent to an interview earlier this month, at which they restated many of the complaints they have had about the Bethel Temple proposal for the past year.

Those include such things as: The bulk of the building; the size of the church as compared with other Longmont churches; questions about whether parking and landscaping plans will satisfy city requirements; concerns about what Bethel Temple plans to do with the bulk of the 38 acres it owns northwest of Pace Street and East Fifth Avenue if the church is built on a 16-acre portion of that site; the noise, traffic congestion and visual impact the church and its congregation would have on the neighborhood: and what the benefit to the city would be of allowing the structure.

The council's consideration of the height exception comes during a meeting that starts at 7 p.m. today in the Civic Center Complex council chambers, Third Avenue and Emery Street.
----------------
The Bethany Temple height exception was voted down. Pastor Miller, a relatively-young man, died a few months later. So much for people having dasies growing above their bodies. - MDW

Wanted - Names and Faces

2007-10-10T21:46:00.000-07:00

If you have photos (with names please!) of anyone involved in the LifeBridge Annex brouhaha - especially the church elders, please send them to doogwray@google.com. Thank you.

Martin Dickey

2007-10-10T21:27:00.000-07:00

Same deal. No photos.

Not anymore.

Dale Bruns

2007-10-10T21:25:00.000-07:00

I did some Google searches recently and discovered there were no photos of Dale Bruns on the web. I looked hard too.

This omission has now been corrected.

Brown Steps Down

2007-10-10T21:21:00.000-07:00

Ah, some days life just conspires to make me smile.

Best news I've heard in a while.

Savvy move too. I mean, who'd want to get pummelled...?

Check Your Voter Registration Right Now

2007-10-08T21:56:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine, who was sure he was registered to vote, got an unpleasant surprise after sorting out a minor traffic ticket. Apparently voter registrations are 'taking longer to processs' these days.

Check your registration status RIGHT NOW online:

Boulder County Clerk Voter Registration Page

Do it right now.

Remember, we live in a RED STATE.

Do it right now. Click Here.

If you're SURE you're registered, check anyway. If you're suddenly NOT registered, please let me know. Especially if you have hard proof.

Rasputin's Girlfriend

2007-09-25T21:55:00.000-07:00

The definition of irony? Julia Pirnack holding forth on ethics.

Now there's a topic dripping irony like the walls of a century-old sewer main. oy!

After a long wait to speak* at a City Council meeting I finally got my chance, strode to the podium and after reminding Julia's Kids (aka Longmont City Council**) that based on the final count of the Union Annex Referendum Petition, 6029 voters basically thought they sucked, sat down and was getting my breath before leaving, when Queen Julia (as I like to think of her, proud, imperious and deeply, deeply evil) made a small proclamation.

She went to some length to underline how the recent CORA request (think of Sgt Schultz here) found nothing no-thing!! and that it was a huge waste of taxpayer money and staff time. She thanked staff (remember, this is just after reviewing the cuts to City personnel and programs) and in her lovely, mellifluous and deeply, deeply evil voice, finished with "That's my little 'public invited to be heard'"

Oh Julia. OH JULIA. If only you'd lived in the days of the Medici. How they'd have loved you. Or perhaps the Russian czars. Surely Rasputin would have ravished you routinely and then begged for your savage punishments. Oh my. Oh dear. (fans face with keyboard) The mere thought sets my heart all a-flutter.

Folks say Council meetings are dull. I beg to differ. It's like visiting with royalty.

Deeply, deeply evil royalty.

I can't wait till the next coronation.

(* where I spoke poorly - the Roman Senate would have thrown tomatoes at me I sounded so bad, but hey, it was a long day and I was tired from yelling and screaming with joy about the 6029 signatures we got for the Union Annex Referendum petition, also, two beers and a great dinner, I was not in my peak trim, my apologies to my fans out there on Channel 3 - all two of em)

(** minus Mayor-to-be Benker of course)

Straight from the darkroom

2007-09-24T21:35:00.000-07:00

This just in - during the petition drive I was able to take some photos of folks that tried to interfere with us... here's one of the few that came out - mysteriously, many of the people didn't leave images on film (or reflections...!)

*grin*

I'm kidding of course.

They looked much worse than this.

Don't Look Back, It's Embarrassing

2007-09-24T20:25:00.000-07:00

The City Council has tried hard to make a case for no conflict of interest, saying that no Council member belonged to the LifeBridge Church. Hm. Well, based on the email archive at

http://www.mail-archive.com/bouldersvcc@lists.colorado.edu/msg00210.html somebody from LifeBridge was very much "on the inside."

Click this thumbnail for a full-size screen capture of the page at the link above in case it mysteriously disappears:

Look at the date of the email - March 3rd, 2005.

The LifeBridge Union Annex Project was referred to Council a year later.

Coincidence?

How about this from Martin "Tricky" Dickey of 4C corporation:

Martin Dickey, 4C chief operating officer, said church and 4C officials have been in the public process for more than four years (From TimesCall.com) - which puts the actual involvement back into the 2004 date range. Looking suspicious yet?

I'm sure this particular can o' worms will get more interesting as we scrape em out onto the sidewalk and let the light of day cook em a bit.

A Very Special Sunday Prayer

2007-09-23T14:40:00.000-07:00

(sent to the LifeBridge Church's online Prayer Request Room)

----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Douglas Wray"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 10:57 PM
Subject: Prayer room

I'd like to submit a prayer request:

"Please, Oh Lord God, ruler of the Heavens and the Earth, please lend care and prudence to your servants throughout our city that they may be cautioned this day from foolish acts that would reflect badly upon Your Name and our beloved Church. We ask these things in Christ's blessed Name with the full expectation that we will be filled with the Spirit of Love for our fellow Longmont residents. Amen."

Thank you very much.
---
The response just back:

From: wyoma@dalrymple.com
Subject: Re: Prayer room
Date: September 23, 2007 3:55:44 PM MDT
To: macguiguru@spamcop.net

Thank you for your prayer request. We will pray with you to this same end.

Wyoma
---

God Bless the folks at the LifeBridge Church who understand how wrong the Union Annex is - especially those who signed the Referendum petition.

Amen

Thompson Park

2007-09-22T21:45:00.000-07:00

View Larger Map

Thompson Park
September 23rd
8:00am - 1:00pm

Final Signing Drive

BE THERE

Aloha

(I'm praying for no interference and I'm sure others are too!)

So So Sad

2007-09-21T19:53:00.000-07:00

Well, had a very productive evening at ArtWalk collecting signatures.

Incredible how many folks signed up - we gave folks a marker to show they'd signed so we would know who to focus on (THANKS NORMA!!) and people were wearing them like badges of honor! Smiling, waving, you could feel the energy of the City like electricity in the air.

It was great.

ArtWalk staff came by and tried to (half-heartedly and good-naturedly) make us take away our table, but the folks at Abbondanza Pizzeria had given us permission to be there (Thanks guys!!!), so, sorry, not leaving. It was good, my feet were tired and I welcomed the chair. I can do a multi-hour shift sitting down anytime.

Here's the really sad part of the evening - there were Obvious Moles (HI MS. BRUNK!!) wandering around and definitely doing everything they could to interfere as often as they could get away with. One young couple came back two or three times - once very aggressively when I was alone* - little did they know I had a videocamera running under the table.

Kids.... you KNOW it's illegal - all the petition circulators have been telling you politely (I've had to explain it myself more than once).

No more warnings.

(* ah, proud Christ Warriors! Fearless. Yeahright)

Flashy Lies

2007-09-20T23:43:00.000-07:00

Wow. Ya gotta hand it to the folks at the Times-Call. They didn't want to look like they were getting all the way down on their knees for the 4C folks by slathering ads all over the place, so they did this terribly clever six-panel Flash animation that touts all the wonders of the Union Annex. Of course it's all lies... but that's never stopped a good salesman before. Six ads for the space of one. And it blinks too. Golly. Ain't technology (and corruption) grand? (as in Grand Old Party - or should I say Grotesquely Outrageous Prevarication)

Bravo gentlemen, bravo.

I considered doing a parody of this, but on reflection decided you'd done a fine job yourselves.

Weld Didn't Want it EITHER

2007-09-17T23:29:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.churchcentral.com/nw/s/template/Article.html/id/14838

Lifebridge Christian wants mega-church campus on 315 acres
11 Feb 2003

LONGMONT, Colo. -- The Lifebridge Christian Church is envisioning a big future for its congregation.

According to the Greely Tribune, since beginning more than 100 years ago as a hodgepodge of home Bible studies, the Longmont church has grown steadily and then sharply -- from 700 in 1991 to 2,700 at present.

Lifebridge now is considering using 315 acres it bought for $5 million in 2001 as the site of a new church campus.

The open farmland would become a 150-acre church campus including three chapels, a 5,000-seat outdoor prayer garden, a worship and learning center, a 6,000-seat auditorium, a performing arts center and a recreation center, plus space for activities, adult education and administration offices.

The remaining 165 acres would be used for housing, parks and trails.

"What the church is looking to do is to create a space to grow into over the next 50 years," administrator Bruce Grinnell said.

Grinnell said that, while the church is nonprofit, a separate financial church entity would be established so Lifebridge could sell and rent housing for seniors and families for a profit.

But mega-church projects such as this aren't always welcomed happily. In similar instances around the U.S., nearby property owners and neighborhood associations have battled the construction of such complexes because of the enormity of the buildings and the traffic they draw.

To date, the Weld County planning department has received 14 letters of protest, and opponents in the three subdivisions surrounding the property have campaigned against the project.

The land is zoned for residential homes, and Lifebridge is requesting a switch to public utility district, which allows a mix of homes, shops and church space.

Resident Wendy Wahlin doesn’t mind having a church in the neighborhood, but she fears a huge increase in traffic and such drastic changes to the surrounding countryside.

"Our neighborhood group came to the consensus that it’s not the church we have a problem with," she said. "It’s what they’re doing with the land right next to us."

http://www.churchcentral.com/nw/s/template/Article.html/id/14838

Who Would Jesus Consult With?

2007-09-17T22:00:00.001-07:00

Why, the Timothy Group, of course!

Man, these guys get creepier and creepier by the minute.

So the Union Annex is a 'Success Story' - ? We'll just see about that.

It's kinda like 10,000 Ned Flanderses on crack. *shudder*

"Connecting People (obligatory cross)(Jesus winces) Building Hope"

- more like:

"Bilking Taxpayers ($) Screwing America"

---
Here's a classic from their 'website' :

http://www.timothygroup.com/clients/Churches/tabid/64/Default.aspx

"During the 12 months of our service relationship the Timothy Group offered a very personal to a unique situation."

huh?

... "a very personal" >what?<

All I know is that if this little Jonestown gets built, it's Longmont that will be drinkin the KoolAide... truly a very personal... something.

Referendum is a fundamental RIGHT

2007-09-17T20:08:00.000-07:00

To all the 'Bridgers who've come up to me at petition-signing stations and cawed on and on about 'why did we elect them if we don't let them decide for us?' (referring to the City Council):

Please stop it, you're just interfering and it's ILLEGAL.
Read this.
and this.
then go away

$500 + 1 yr in jail

Lipstick on a Pig

2007-09-14T23:43:00.000-07:00

The 4C old boys club is scared and so are the kids on the City Council. They see the very strong possibility of their nifty little tax-dodge/get-rich-quick scheme blowing up in their face like dad's dirty shotgun.

The blowhards are coming out of the woodwork - showing up at petition-signing locations and picking fights (boy, that's Christian!) and now the City (read: Julia's Kids) is whipping up a whole new website to tout the wonders of Union.

They can put all the lipstick they want on it - it's still a pig - and we shouldn't take it out on a date, no matter what those fine farmboys tell us.

To me, the worst of it is, it's just a really, really sad and pathetic website. I'm sure the team that runs the City's site didn't build it - probably more of the 4C's cronies crankin this crap out. Under the hood it's some of the saddest, weak-tea almost-but-not-quite code I've ever seen. Probably hacked out with Word and some low-grade web-design gui POS.

The truly laughable part is that it's almost ALL linked PDFs - many of them single pages. Good grief... this is the best that crowd of half-educated knuckledraggers can do?

Xerox WCP 65? LOL! Someone's scanning stuff with a photocopier and making PDFs - that just SCREAMS 'terrified upper-management goon screwing around with office equipment'. Pretty obvious this was conceived over cocktails and slammed out before dinner.

The Red Chinese produce better propaganda than this.

"Dispelling the Myths" is just a rehash of the Mayor's pathetic bleating. What's in it for Longmont blew that nonsense away long ago. The fact that they're trying to trumpet it again just underlines their desperation.

The most screamingly funny, fall down and kick your feet line is this:

ALL OF UNION’S FACILITIES AND AMENITIES WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

Guys.... gals... I was born AT night, not LAST night.

Thanks for the laugh, now take this awful piece of BS off the web, you're stinkin the place up.
---

One last note, who is Pete Lepetsos?

Registrant:
Pete Lepetsos
335 Sprucewood Ct
Lafayette, Colorado 80026
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: UNIONANNEXATION.COM
Created on: 06-Sep-07 <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Expires on: 06-Sep-08
Last Updated on: 06-Sep-07

Administrative Contact:
Lepetsos, Pete plepetsos@prominenceweb.com
335 Sprucewood Ct
Lafayette, Colorado 80026
United States
(720) 234-4566
-----

"Prominenceweb.com" was built using the cutting edge technology of
META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe PageMill 3.0 Win"

I'm laughing my ass off.

The Truth vs "Pirnack Facts"

2007-09-07T09:06:00.000-07:00

WhatsInItforLongmont analyzes Mayor's Opinion Piece

"To expect the public to become educated enough to make a reasonable decision...is ridiculous."

Julia Pirnack, "The Truth about Union", Guest Opinion, DAILY TIMES-CALL, 6th September 2007

Why does the Mayor have so little faith in the people of Longmont? Our guess: In fact she fears that the voters do indeed have the ability to discern what's a bad deal for the City, and thus she wishes to becloud the issues with her opinion piece.

Why is the Mayor getting in the way of due process, when questioning the decisions of our government is the right and duty of all citizens? It is part of the checks and balances that keep government honest and focused on serving its citizens. The Mayor should sit back and let the democratic system work.

The Mayor Says: "Don't be hoodwinked by propaganda created by a Denver-based political group"

We Say: Every member of this group is a tax-paying Longmont resident and we've been joined by over a thousand other Longmont residents. The Mayor and City Council need to address us. For example, the individuals who picked up the referendum petition packet from the City Clerk - and then contacted me - have lived in the area for over 30 years. David Petersen was born here and grew up with the mayor. The mayor could easily have confirmed this by checking with the City Clerk.

The Mayor Says: If denied annexation the project would develop in Weld County; Union would receive our services, but Longmont would not receive property or use taxes, building permit fees, or a valuable strategic water right

We Say: If LifeBridge develops in Weld County as they have gotten the right to do, Longmont will nevertheless collect sales tax revenue when Union residents make purchases in Longmont, notably at a Super WalMart immediately across Highway 119 from Union. And if Union develops in Weld County, Longmont residents will not need to bear the full risk of a failed development, and failure of the development is a substantial possibility (see later comments on housing and the sports arena).

The Mayor Says: She is appalled that we are attacking the church. Disallowing a community of faith would be blatantly unallowable based on the First Amendment. Members of the church have lived in Longmont for over 100 years.

We Say: We've never said anything about this. Furthermore, Richard Juday clearly stated that our expectation that the City Council will work in the best interest of current Longmont residents hardly constitutes an infringement on anyone's right to freedom of assembly or expression of faith. LifeBridge themselves say that they will develop whether in Longmont or Weld County, so clearly they should not feel oppressed. The church fills a fine role in the community, but that is not justification that the City should, at taxpayer expense, support its plans for commercial-scale (many hundreds of millions of dollars) development. The expense to Longmont is not trivial! Tens of millions of dollars will go into capital infrastructure, and we show an annual loss of roughly a million dollars continuing after a presumed-successful build-out. LifeBridge will tell you that they will pay up-front the costs to deliver sewer, water, and electricity to the annexed land, but the City will rebate those costs over the life of the project.

The Mayor Says: We know all the tax-exempt issues. Any activity or entity that does not qualify as tax-exempt will be taxed. Economic impact studies conducted by impartial credentialed companies that this project will have net positive economic impact to the City, even at its worst case.

We Say: LifeBridge has not agreed to any assurances about their tax status. Repeatedly, they hide behind wording such as "We will pay all taxes legally required," rather than agree to clarifications that would allow better computations of the tax income future for Longmont. (We hardly need remind you that it is taxes that the City runs on - that pave the streets, pay for police and fire protection, build and maintain parks, etc.) Why are we concerned? Because cities across the nation are tied up in costly litigation over similar projects:
- South Bend, Indiana: a retirement community whose residents have an average net worth of $1M seeks exemption from property taxes because its management is a religious order.
- Orlando, Florida: biblical theme park gets tax exemption
- Other areas: lawmakers and judges have approved what amounts to special tax treatment for religious organizations and some of their employees, including exemptions on personal-income and payroll taxes, and have made it easier for them to get tax-exempt construction loans on purely religious projects; these tax breaks are widely defended both as acknowledgment of religion's contributions to society and as barrier to unjustified government limitations on liberty that religious organizations enjoy under First Amendment; but in some communities, tolerance of religious tax breaks is fraying as local governments struggle to provide basic services with limited resources.

The Mayor Says: We have an extraordinary amount of information compared to what is required for annexation.

We Say:
- No one performed an impact analysis to the City if the development fails. Why are we concerned? A good deal of the offsetting revenue to the City is projected to arise from a sports arena. However, this arena would be right between similar and competing and existing facilities: the Budweiser center in Loveland, and the (non-profit) event center in Broomfield. Among other problems, the project would bring 700 new houses into the local real estate market, and as of this writing there are 900 houses for sale in an already slow market in Longmont.
- Proposed development over the next 10 years does not return any significant tax benefits to the City, but will represent a significant drain on resources. Given the economic situation in the country, particularly the real estate market right now, the anticipated stifling of population increase as Colorado's water supplies dry up in global warming or are consumed by new subdivisions, the huge national debt, and the inevitable prospect of "peak oil" during LifeBridge's planning period for this development, it is all too likely that economic projections made on the basis of recent and current conditions will not be found accurate in the fullness of time.
- No market analysis substantiates the developer's assertion that there would be a market for the types of houses and business development planned for Union. In fact, the City's own 2006 retail development survey states that there is already a surfeit of commercial space in Longmont (look around at shuttered stores on Main Street), and that to add space will detract from existing occupancy. All reports on economic vitality, areas needing stimulus, etc., focus on Main Street, and Main Street is a long way from Union.
- There are no letters of interest from potential retailers (per Planning Director Brad Schol on August 2nd)
- Longmont City Manager Gordon Pedrow stated that Longmont's 2007 revenue projects did not pan out. Pedrow also stated that Longmont must "apply its limited resources to meet our most critical needs."
- BBC, which conducted the tax and property revenue analysis for the City, also worked for LifeBridge. Given the impact of this development, if annexed, the City should have conducted a completely independent and impartial analysis rather than use the same analysis package that LifeBridge manipulated to provide (ultimately unsupportable) rosy projections.

The Mayor Says: It's fiction that the City will have to build a fire station just for Union. Then she says that building a new fire station is always the case. Ultimately, the City will provide fire protection. The developer, at his expense, will install sprinklers and pay for paramedic response. Also donating land for a future station.

We Say: So if the City always has to build a fire station, why did the mayor decide that our argument was fiction? Who will staff the fire station, given the City's decision to cut jobs and services in 2008? The City's most recent fire station was built in the Clover Basin area, and the City did not build it - the developer did, and the residents local to that station will be paying additional taxes for years to pay it off. Why should the Union Annexation be given preferential treatment?

The Mayor Says: As do all developers, they must provide water to the City to compensate for new users. The Union project will dedicate a valuable water right associated with Union Reservoir to the City. This water right represents a net gain.

We Say: What is the valuable water right that Longmont will receive? There has been talk of digging and trenching at Union Reservoir, but for West Union. In an action before the Water Court as of this writing, the City will be able to reclaim and reuse its processed waste water from the St. Vrain, but water delivered to the Union Annexation would pass along to Weld County and not be reclaimable by Longmont.

The Mayor Says: The developer will pay millions of dollars in transportation impact fees to the City for road improvements to alleviate transportation impacts. The project will pave CR-26 and pay $600,000 for other transportation improvements. A detailed traffic impact study was performed.

We Say: We'd like to see more information before the Council commits Longmont taxpayers to a real estate deal. The people of Longmont want clear answers, in writing.

The Mayor Says: The project will comply fully with both of these standards (affordable housing and school capacity benchmarks) as it builds, just as any developer would.

We Say: It's great that LifeBridge finally came around on these issues. LifeBridge originally asked for these exemptions and held out for months, which is why we've discussed them.

The Mayor Says: The Union project was processed under PUD guidelines, as are most projects in the city. We use the PUD process to encourage quality standards by allowing the design team some flexibility. Allowed only 2 variances as an expected outcome.

We Say: LifeBridge was allowed to support an employee within the City Planning Department, dedicated to furthering LifeBridge's application process. Richard Juday states, "It has been disquieting to see City employees rise before Council and have to refer questions from Council to LifeBridge staff." This project has been unduly hurried through the approval process, an egregious example being that the Comprehensive Plan has been modified simultaneously with the project's stages of approval. Longmont's long-standing process has been that a proposed development is compared with the Comprehensive Plan, which is evolved with time allowed for the citizenry to comment and participate. Approval should be given to only such development as meets the existing Comprehensive Plan, but the process has been subverted in this instance. In fact, one member of the Planning and Zoning Commission quit over this kind of subversion, and another publicly stated that he recants his vote in favor of the development. Such a recantation is, to our knowledge, unprecedented.

The Mayor Says: No one has conducted a valid survey upon which to base the statement that the majority of Longmont residents oppose annexation.

We Say: The Times-Call straw poll shows 73% of Longmont residents opposed to the development. Additionally, calls to the T-C Line have been against the development; there were 2 hours of public comment against the development at the August 14th meeting; 880+ Longmont residents petitioned Council to reconsider at the August 14th meeting. Additionally, no one has conducted a valid survey to refute the idea that the residents oppose this annexation.

The Mayor Says: City Council has all the answers and the signatures of the 880 Longmont residents who asked the Council to hold off on annexation don't count for anything.

We Say: The "signatures," which the mayor so easily dismisses, came entirely from Longmont area residents.
- The mayor can say that this will be good for Longmont as often as she likes, but saying something does not make it true. We want to see guarantees in writing. We want to see the impact on the City budget, which does not look good for 2008.
- The cost of providing services and amenities to the development were not taken into account by the City when it claimed that the annexation will provide net revenue. When all the costs are factored in, the City will be subsidizing the development to the tune of $1M per year.
- In addition to this recurring subsidy, there are capital costs for fire station, extending water, extending sewers, and extending electric to the area which is separated from the City by about half a mile, and for park areas that the City has agreed to develop at taxpayer expense.
- Many concerned Longmont residents, including Richard Juday, have been at numerous meetings. But regardless of how many people showed up at Council meetings, the fact that so many were against this particular annexation from the beginning should have been reason enough to put the annexation to a vote.
- Why didn't the Mayor publish her editorial BEFORE the August 14th meeting and BEFORE the referendum petition?
- If the City Council is so highly educated about this, why could Council members and other City employees not answer questions at the August 14th meeting? We think it arrogant of Council, in the face of clearly expressed sentiment of the voters, to take it upon themselves to make the decision to annex.

Dial L for LifeBridge

2007-09-06T22:08:00.000-07:00

Ah, can't ya just SMELL the fear? and what's all that rustling? Could it be all the lawsuits breathing down people's necks (Liberty Council ring any churchbells out there?) Why, it's enough to make folks get out the plans for their new mega-mansion and start cryin.

Our lovely mayor, clearly getting tired of hearing the LifeBridge elders whine at her on the phone, called up her pal at the local fishwrap-factory and I suspect it went something like this:

"Lehman"

"Pirnack"

"Oh, you again. Listen J, I've got a one o'clock tee time and..."

"Can it! This is serious!"

"(sigh) Ok. What? Another Op-Ed piece? We're still payin for the writer's therapy from the last one."

"Hey, look, it's not my fault your staff can't work with a real pro."

"(chortle) yeahright. So, how much?"

"Full page"

"ARE YOU NUTS?! I'm not made outta money!"

"Don't forget you're little people, are your licenses in order pal?"

"(resigned sigh)(off-presence) STOP EVERYTHING! (sound of crashing/cursing)"

"You'll get us copy by 5?"

"I'll have my boy drop it off"

"Right, I'll keep the door unlocked."

"Super. Have a good game, don't bend your putter"

"(expletive)"

*click*

and thus we get the following:
(rebuttal and real facts to come)

Guest Opinions
The truth about Union
Separating fiction from the facts

By Mayor Julia Pirnack

Special to the Daily Times-Call

Longmont residents, please do not be hoodwinked by propaganda invented by members of a Denverbased political action committee and a few others who are circulating misinformation and the petition to overturn the decision of your City Council regarding the LifeBridge Christian Church/Union annexation.

Fiction: Voting against Union by council or in a special election (costing $50,000-plus) will stop the project. Fact: The project already has approval to develop in Weld County. If not annexed to Pirnack Longmont, Union residents will use our services, but we will not receive property or use taxes, building permit fees, or a valuable, strategic water right.

Fiction: LifeBridge will "screen" individuals to allow only those who agree with the church's religion to live/work in the development. Fact: While LifeBridge has guaranteed this is not the case, I am appalled they were even asked this question. Disallowing any development out of fear that people who share a common faith may live near each other would be blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Do you want the government to make regulations that could, in effect, dictate to you where you can live based upon your religion? Members of this church have lived and worked in our community for more than 100 years.

Fiction: We don't know up-front what will be tax exempt and what won't be.

Fact: We do know. Any activity or entity that does not qualify as taxexempt under federal, state and local tax codes will be taxed. Do we wish to re-invent these codes to apply to all nonprofits? Singling out one entity for different treatment is neither legal nor ethical. We also know through economic impact studies conducted by impartial, credentialed companies (rather than second-guessed by political activists) that this project will have a net positive economic impact to the city, even at its "worst case. "

Fiction: We don't have en gh information about the costs nd revenues for this project. 9"

Fact: We have an extraordinary amount of information about this development compared to what is required or normally available at annexation.

Fiction: The city will have to build a fire station just for Union.

Fact: As is always the case, ultimately the city will provide fire protection to serve a new area of the city. In the meantime, in order to comply with our fire-response benchmark, the developer, at his expense, will install sprinklers in; side every building and pay for paramedic response to the development. They also are donating land for a future station.

Fiction: The city will be committing valuable water resources that will burden our water supply. Fact; As do all developers, they must provide water to the city to compensate for new users. The Union project will dedicate an extremely valuable water right associated with Union Reservoir to the city. This water right represents a net gain.

Fiction: Transportation improvements will cost taxpayers and the project will create congestion.

Fact: The developer will pay millions of dollars in transportation impact fees to the city for road improvements to alleviate transportation impacts. The project will pave County Road 26 (East Ninth Avenue) from County Line Road to Weld County Road 5 and pay an additional $600,000 for other transportation improvements; A detailed traffic impact study was performed to determine future transportation needs.

Fiction: The areas shown for public parks will be at the cost of taxpayers. Fact; The Union project includes a wealth of trails, open spaces and large park spaces, exceeding the city's requirements. The developer will pay for these areas to be improved to our standards at no cost to the city. All of the facilities will be accessible to the public. The Union project also will help the city complete a trail under Colo. Highway 119 by paying a share of the underpass cost.

Fiction: Union will not have to abide by the city's affordable housing rules or the school capacity benchmark. Fact; The project will comply fully with both of these standards in whatever form they exist as the project builds, just as any other developer would.

Fiction: The city approved vesting terms that are too long and have no benefit to us. FachThe developer requested vesting of seven years for residential, 15 for commercial and 40 total for the civic/religious areas. We approved three years for residential (state law grants this automatically), five and 15 for commercial and civic/religious respectively. By granting vesting, both parties gain assurance the project can develop using the rigorous design standards under which was approved, residents will know what to expect, and any future changes must still be approved by the city through public processes.

Fiction: The Council and Planning and Zoning Commission granted too many exceptions to the Union developer. Fact; The Union project was processed under planned unit development guidelines, as are most projects in the city. We use the PUD process to encourage high-quality standards for architecture, larger areas of open and public spaces, and so forth, by allowing the design team some flexibility. This project went through an intensive review process that allowed only twovariances, an expected outcome of the PUD process.

Fiction: A majority of residents oppose the annexation.

Fact: How can people say this with a straight face? No one has conducted a valid survey upon which to base this statement.

Fiction: The City Council needs to study this further before making a decision.

Fact: This statement is really out of line. Just because some individuals chose to appear at meetings only a time of two does not mean the council is uniformed. We spent more than a year in public meetings working through the many facets of this proposal, reading hundreds of pages of material and receiving resident input. Topics of height exceptions, enhanced development standards, water rights, vested property rights, transportation, wildlife and economic development were all discussed in depth. The city also has maintained a detailed Web site space to allow residents to inform themselves. The matter also was heard by the city's Planning and Zoning Commission at a public meeting (they unanimously recommended approval of the annexation). In spite of the availability of accurate information, project opponents have repeatedly misstated facts about the project, including on their spammed e-mail petition, making those "signatures" worthless as a means to gauge public support. This same group is gathering signatures for a special election on this issue. This project will make a positive contribution to our city by establishing a high-quality entryway and providing a wide range of housing, civic facilities (that could include a performing arts center), a mixeduse commercial area with opportunities for retail, open space, increased revenue and a valuable water right. Or, this project can develop in Weld County with lower standards, all of the impacts, but none of the benefits to Longmont. We rely upon your good judgment and intelligence to recognize there is a good reason the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to annex this property, as well as six out of seven members of the City Council.

Julia Pirnack is the mayor of Longmont
(but not for much longer - d)

The Referendum Effort Begins

2007-08-30T23:53:00.000-07:00

The petition has been submitted. No doubt City lawyers are dissecting it feverishly, hoping against hope that there's a misplaced word or punctuation mark that will set us back.

You can almost hear Dale Bruns sweating.

People are approaching us out of the blue asking to sign the petition.

I may just be a wild-eyed optimist (well, wild-eyed for sure) but I think the Longmont City Council is in for the b-slappin of their lives. Hope they've got a cheek (or more) to turn, cause it's gonna be damn sore.

Keep an eye on What's in It for Longmont, details on how to volunteer and where petitions will be available is coming. You can always sign up at the Progress Now page - just hit the 'Take Action' button at the top of the site.

Get pissed off Longmont!

Your City Council has ignored your voice!

Now it's time to deliver a good, solid spanking -
just like all spoiled brats need!!

Tell your friends - tell every single person you know.

We need 4000+ signatures -
let's get 10,000!

11th Hour

2007-08-27T20:58:00.001-07:00

Dominionism 101

2007-08-26T14:23:00.000-07:00

Some excellent background on the group known as "Dominionists" - these are the people behind Union Annex. Make no mistake, they do not respect the Constitution, your rights and certainly not any religion but their own.

Dealing with them is dealing with the devil IMHO.

By Chip Berlet Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 05:29:29 PM EST
topic: Reconstruction & Dominion section:Front Page

In a September 1994 plenary speech to the Christian Coalition national convention, Rev. D. James Kennedy said that "true Christian citizenship" involves an active engagement in society to "take dominion over all things as vice-regents of God."
Kennedy's remarks were reported in February 1995 by sociologist and journalist Sara Diamond, who wrote that Kennedy had "echoed the Reconstructionist line."
More than anyone else, it was Sara Diamond who popularized the use of the term "dominionism" to describe a growing political tendency in the Christian Right. It is a useful term that has, unfortunately, been used in a variety of ways that are neither accurate nor useful. Diamond was careful to discuss how the small Christian Reconstructionist theological movement had helped introduce "dominionism" as a concept into the larger and more diverse social/political movements called the Christian Right.

Dominionism is therefore a tendency among Protestant Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists that encourages them to not only be active political participants in civic society, but also seek to dominate the political process as part of a mandate from God.

This highly politicized concept of dominionism is based on the Bible's text in Genesis 1:26:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Version).

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (New International Version).

The vast majority of Christians read this text and conclude that God has appointed them stewards and caretakers of Earth. As Sara Diamond explains, however, some Christian read the text and believe, "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns--and there is no consensus on when that might be." That, in a nutshell, is the idea of "dominionism."

Just because some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point does not mean we should abandon the term. And while it is true that few participants in the Christian Right Culture War want a theocracy as proposed by the Christian Reconstructionists, many of their battlefield Earth commanders are leading them in that direction. And a number of these leaders have been influenced by Christian Reconstructionism, which is a variant of theocracy called theonomy. William
William

Martin is the author of the 1996 tome With God on Our Side, a companion volume to the PBS series. Martin is a sociologist and professor of religion at Rice university, and he has been critical of the way some critics of the Christian Right have tossed around the terms "dominionism" and "theocracy." Martin has offered some careful writing on the subject. According to Martin:

"It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, 'Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.' "

According to Martin, "several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books."

Before he died in 2001, the founder of Christian Reconstuctionism, R. J. Rushdoony, appeared several times on Christian Right televangelist programs such as Pat Robertson's 700 Club and the program hosted by D. James Kennedy, writes Martin.

"Pat Robertson makes frequent use of 'dominion' language" says Martin, "his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' "

Martin also points out that "Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, 'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality . . . in all points of history . . . and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike. . . . It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership James Kennedy is one of them-who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'"

So let's choose our language carefully, but let's recognize that terms such as "dominionism" and "theocracy," when used cautiously and carefully, are appropriate when describing anti-democratic tendencies in the Christian Right.

The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy - Part Two
By Chip Berlet Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:08:10 AM EST
topic: Reconstruction & Dominion section:Front Page

author bio
The term "dominionism" is used different ways by different people. When new terms are developed, that is to be expected. If we are to use words and phrases to discuss ideas, however, it pays to be on the same page concerning how we define those terms. This is especially true in public debates.

In her 1989 book Spiritual Warfare, sociologist Sara Diamond discussed how dominionism as an ideological tendency in the Christian Right had been significantly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism. Over the past 20 years the leading proponents of Christian Reconstructionism and dominion theology have included Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Andrew Sandlin.
Diamond explained that "the primary importance of the [Christian Reconstructionist] ideology is its role as a catalyst for what is loosely called 'dominion theology.'" According to Diamond, "Largely through the impact of Rushdoony's and North's writings, the concept that Christians are Biblically mandated to 'occupy' all secular institutions has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right." (italics in the original).

In a series of articles and book chapters Diamond expanded on her thesis. She called Reconstructionism "the most intellectually grounded, though esoteric, brand of dominion theology," and observed that "promoters of Reconstructionism see their role as ideological entrepreneurs committed to a long-term struggle."

So Christian Reconstructionism was the most influential form of dominion theology, and it influenced both the theological concepts and political activism of white Protestant conservative evangelicals mobilized by the Christian Right.

But very few evangelicals have even heard of dominion theology, and fewer still embrace Christian Reconstructionism. How do we explain this, especially since our critics are quick to point it out?

The answer lies in teasing apart the terminology and how it is used.

Christian Reconstructionism is a form of theocratic dominion theology. Its leaders challenged evangelicals across a wide swath of theological beliefs to engage in a more muscular and activist form of political participation. The core theme of dominion theology is that the Bible mandates Christians to take over and "occupy" secular institutions.

A number of Christian Right leaders read what the Christian Reconstructionists were writing, and they adopted the idea of taking dominion over the secular institutions of the United States as the "central unifying ideology" of their social movement. They decided to gain political power through the Republican Party.

This does not mean most Christian Right leaders became Christian Reconstructionists. It does mean they were influenced by dominion theology. But they were influenced in a number of different ways, and some promote the theocratic aspects more militantly than others.

It helps to see the terms dominionism, dominion theology, and Christian Reconstructionism as distinct and not interchangeable. While all Christian Reconstructionists are dominionists, not all dominionists are Christian Reconstructionists.

In its generic sense, dominionism is a very broad political tendency within the Christian Right. It ranges from soft to hard versions in terms of its theocratic impulse.

Soft Dominionists are Christian nationalists. They believe that Biblically-defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. They fear that America's greatness as God's chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals. Purists want litmus tests for issues of abortion, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools. Their vision has elements of theocracy, but they stop short of calling for supplanting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Hard Dominionists believe all of this, but they want the United States to be a Christian theocracy. For them the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely addendums to Old Testament Biblical law. They claim that Christian men with specific theological beliefs are ordained by God to run society. Christians and others who do not accept their theological beliefs would be second-class citizens. This sector includes Christian Reconstructionists, but it has a growing number of adherents in the leadership of the Christian Right.

It makes more sense to reserve the term "dominion theology" to describe specific theological currents, while using the term "dominionism" in a generic sense to discuss a tendency toward aggressive political activism by Christians who claim they are mandated by God to take over society. Even then, we need to locate the subject of our criticisms on a scale that ranges from soft to hard versions of dominionism.

As I have written elsewhere, crafting an appropriate response depends on what sector of the Christian Right we are criticizing:

Christian Conservatives - They play by the rules of a democratic republic, and so our response should be to develop better ideas and carry out better grassroots organizing campaigns.
Christian Nationalists - They erode pluralism, and we must defend separation of church and state, but also engage in a discussion of the legitimate boundaries when religious beliefs intersect with participation in a secular civil society.
Christian Theocrats - They want to replace democracy with an authoritarian theocratic society run by a handful of Christian men. They seek to supersede the Constitution and Bill of Rights with Old Testament Biblical law. We must oppose them and not give an inch in our defense of democracy against theocracy.

The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy - Part Three
By Chip Berlet Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 05:46:51 PM EST
topic: Reconstruction & Dominion section:Front Page

In the Christian Right, more leaders than followers have consciously embraced dominionist ideas. The tendency toward a "dominionist impulse," however, has continued to become more widespread since the 1970s, making a discussion of theocracy not only legitimate, but necessary. Conscious or unconscious--dominionism is a real threat to democracy.
Author Bruce Barron warned of a growing "dominionist impulse" among evangelicals in his 1992 book Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Barron, with a Ph.D. in American religious history, is also an advocate of Christian political participation, and has worked with conservative Christian evangelicals and elected officials. Barron is smart, courteous, and not someone you would debate without doing a whole boatload of homework. Disrespect him at your own risk.

I have discussed the Christian Right with Sara Diamond, William Martin, and Bruce Barron. The first three essays in this series are based on their work, reflecting a broad range of political and spiritual viewpoints. Along with my colleague Frederick Clarkson, it is authors Diamond, Barron, and Martin who built a firm foundation for the use of the terms dominionism and dominion theology.

Barron is worried by the aggressive, intolerant, and confrontational aspects of dominion theology; and is especially concerned that these ideas have seeped into the broader Christian evangelical community. Dominion theology is not a version of Christianity with which Barron is comfortable.

In his book, Barron looks at two theological currents: Christian Reconstructionism and Kingdom Now, and explains that "Many observers have grouped them together under the more encompassing rubric of 'dominion theology.'" Christian Reconstructionism evolved out of the writings of R.J. Rushdoony; while Kingdom Now theology emerged from the ministry of Earl Paulo.
"

While differing from Reconstructionism in many ways, Kingdom Now shares the belief that Christians have a mandate to take dominion over every area of life," explains Barron. And it is just this tendency that has spread through evangelical Protestantism, resulting in the emergence of "various brands of 'dominionist' thinkers in contemporary American evangelicalism," according to Barron.

The distinction is crucial. Dominion theology (Christian Reconstructionism, Kingdom Now, and a handful of smaller theologies), has generated a variety of versions or "brands" of "dominionism" adopted by a number of leaders in the Christian Right who would not describe themselves as "dominionist;" and most certainly would reject the theological tenets promulgated by a "dominion theology" such as Christian Reconstructionism.

Beginning in the 1960s, and gathering force in the 1970s, the "dominionist impulse" rode along a wave of discontent among evangelicals and fundamentalists. They were upset with secular society, especially federal court decisions and government legislation and regulations they felt intruded too far into the personal--and religious--life. Their concern over social, cultural, and political issues involving pornography, school prayer, abortion, and homosexuality prompted participation in national elections since the 1970s.

This social movement of conservative Christian evangelicals was mobilized by the Christian Right, who joined with ultraconservative political operatives to take over the Republican Party. In this coalition, there are a wide variety of theological tendencies and disputes that are temporarily set aside in favor of organizing to achieve a specific political agenda. This coalition also sets aside disputes over how the End Times of biblical prophecy play out. This means that the primarily "postmillennialist" Christian Reconstructionists work on projects with the primarily "premillennialist" evangelical constituency of the Christian Right.

Open advocates of dominionism declare that "America is a Christian Nation," and that therefore Christians have a God-given mandate to re-assert Christian control over political, social, and cultural institutions. Yet many dominionists stop short of staking out a position that could be called theocratic. This is the "soft" version of dominionism.

The "hard" version of dominionism is explicitly theocratic or "theonomic," as the Christian Reconstructionists prefer to be called. For America, it is a distinction without a difference. According to Barron, "Unlike the Christian Right, Reconstructionism is not simply or primarily a political movement; it is first and foremost an educational movement fearlessly proclaiming an ideology of total world transformation." Barron also "observed a discomforting triumphalism within dominion theology, especially its takeover rhetoric." In this usage, "triumphalism" simply means when it comes to religions belief, it's my way or the highway. One God, one religion, one folk, one nation--a Christian Nation--love it or leave it.

Barron notes that Christian Reconstructionism has "intellectual substance, internal coherence, and heavy dependence on Scripture," and this has helped "Reconstructionist philosophy win a hearing in many sectors of the Christian Right." For example, Barron found the "idea of Christian dominion, though with less emphasis on biblical law, has been echoed within the Charismatic movement, that segment of American Christianity identified by its free-spirited, demonstrative worship and its practice of spiritual gifts such as tongue speaking and prophecy."

One well-known Charismatic preacher is Pat Robertson, who reaches millions of viewers weekly through his "700 Club" television program. "Robertson's explicit emphasis on the need to restore Christians to leadership roles in American society mirrors what" Barron called, "a dominionist impulse in contemporary evangelicalism."

Who is a dominionist?

Barron argued that "in the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus."

Around World War II it was the sentiment of many evangelical Protestants in the United States that they needed to find a way to co-exist with an increasingly pluralistic society, and thus they began to self-identify as "evangelicals" to distinguish themselves from the more doctrinaire and intolerant wing of "fundamentalism."

Barron believes that the "all-encompassing agenda" of the dominionists "puts them at odds with those more moderate evangelicals who work for social change yet still affirm the pluralistic nature of a society in which all ideas--be they Christian or anti-Christian, derived from or opposed to biblical law--have an equal right to be heard and to compete for public acceptance."

So evangelicals can work for conservative social change without being "dominionist," and some can be our allies in building broad opposition to dominionism as an impulse in the Christian Right. This is aided in part by an intractable contradiction among practitioners of hard forms of dominion theology.

As Sara Diamond explains, ultimately, "Dominionist thinking precludes coalitions between believers and unbelievers...." This creates an irresolvable contradictory tension. "The Christian Right wants to take dominion," notes Diamond, but it also wants to work within "the existing political-economic system, at the same time." The broader the Christian Right stretches as an electoral coalition, the more obvious it becomes that some of its key leaders want a theocracy rather than a democracy. Hard-line dominionists want to overthrow the existing political-economic system and replace it with a theocracy. That's a real hard sell to most of our neighbors.

In the United States today, there is a struggle between democracy and theocracy--as Fred Clarkson so aptly puts it in the title of his book. This is obvious to many of us, perhaps, but it is largely being ignored by the mainstream media and most Christian evangelicals. This is a wedge issue that can only be effective if we learn how to distinguish among the many different theological, political, organizational, and other aspects of Christian belief and political participation. Using terms such as "dominionism" and "theocracy" in a cautious and careful way allows us to broaden the conversation, and broaden the coalition that seeks to defend the dream of democracy against the nightmare of theocracy.

The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy - Part Four
By Chip Berlet Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 09:37:54 AM EST
topic: Reconstruction & Dominion section:Front Page

Putting the Christian Right in its proper place in the political spectrum as a component of the broader U.S. Political Right is an important step in developing an effective response. This also allows us to evaluate the threat posed by domininionist and theocratic tendencies in the Christian Right. Some people see this better when presented in outline of chart form, so this entry in the series is constructed along those lines.

The Christian Right is a series of social movements with participants that have been mobilized into political participation through the Republican Party as part of a larger set of coalitions that include social conservatives, moral traditionalists, neoconservatives, militarists, etc. The Republican Party and the Christian Right, however, represent just a portion of the entire spectrum of the U.S. Political Right, so we provide a full chart of these sectors below.

The Christian Right plays multiple roles in the political system: as a social movement made up of people with shared grievances; a political movement with a specific set of electoral and legislation goals on the federal and state level; and a coalition partner in conservative politics.

Christian Right: Multiple Roles in Political System
. Social Movement
. Political Movement
. Coalition Partner

The Christian Right itself is made up of different sectors that exist in a coalition that may seem monolithic, but which actually has fracture points where wedge issues can be developed as part of an effective counter-strategy.

Christian Right: Multiple Internal Sectors
. Christian Conservatives
. Christian Nationalists
. Christian Theocrats

Within the Christian Right, it is primarily the Christian Nationalists and Christian Theocrats who pursue a type of dominionism that has theocratic aspects. The degree of dominionist authoritarianism varies by sector. Christian Reconstructionism is the major theopolitical ideology behind Hard Dominionism, but it is a subset of it. So there are nested subsets.

All Hard Dominionist Christian Theocrats are also Soft Dominionist Christian Nationalists, but not all Soft Dominionist Christian Nationalists are Hard Dominionist Christian Theocrats. All Christian Reconstructionists are Hard Dominionist Christian Theocrats and Christian Nationalists, but not all Hard Dominionist Christian Theocrats are Christian Reconstructionists. Whew!

Degree of dominionist authoritarianism:
. Soft Dominionist - Christian Nationalists
. Hard Dominionist - Christian Theocrats
. Christian Reconstructionist

Dominionists of all varieties can also have a complicated mix of attributes. These include the theology and style of religious practice; and the view of biblical End Times prophecy.

Theology and style of religious practice:
. Protestant
. Evangelicals
. Fundamentalists
. Charismatics
. Pentacostals
. Mainstream Protestant denominations (Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran)
. Catholic

View of biblical End Times prophecy:
. Postmillennialists
. Premillennialists
. Amillennialists

The Christian Right is just one of several sectors that comprise the Political Right in the United States. The chart below shows where it fits, dividing the Christian Right into hard and soft dominionists. Christian Conservatives are the bridge between the Secular Right and the Dominionists and Theocrats, but it is a weak bridge. Christian Conservatives are listed in the Chart below as part of the Religious Right.

SECTORS OF THE POLITICAL RIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES:

==SECULAR RIGHT==

. Corporate Internationalists--Nations should control the flow of people across borders, but not the flow of goods, capital, and profit. Sometimes called the "Rockefeller Republicans." Globalists.

. Business Nationalists--Multinational corporations erode national sovereignty; nations should enforce borders for people, but also for goods, capital, and profit through trade restrictions. Enlists grassroots allies from Patriot Movement. Anti-Globalists. Generally protectionist and isolationist.

. Economic Libertarians--The state disrupts the perfect harmony of the free market system. Modern democracy is essentially congruent with capitalism.

. National Security Militarists--Support US military supremacy and unilateral use of force to protect perceived US national security interests around the world. A major component of Cold War anti-communism.

. Neoconservatives--The egalitarian social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s undermined the national consensus. Intellectual oligarchies and political institutions preserve democracy from mob rule. The United States has the right to intervene in its perceived interests anywhere in the world.

----------------------------------------------------------

==RELIGIOUS RIGHT==

. Religious Conservatives Play by the rules of a pluralist democratic republic. Overwhelmingly Christian, with a handful of conservative Jews and Muslims and other people of faith. Moral traditionalists. Cultural and social conservatives.

. Christian Nationalism (Soft Dominionists)--Biblically-defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. America's greatness as God's chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals. Purists want litmus tests for issues of abortion, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools. Overlaps somewhat with Christian theocracy.

. Christian Theocracy (Hard Dominionists)--Christian men are ordained by God to run society. Eurocentric version of Christianity based on early Calvinism. Intrinsically Christian ethnocentric, treating non-Christians as second-class citizens. Implicitly antisemitic. Includes Christian Reconstructionists.

----------------------------------------------------------

==XENOPHOBIC RIGHT==

. Patriot Movement (Regressive Populists)--Secret elites control the government and banks. The government plans repression to enforce elite rule or global collectivism. The armed militias are one submovement from this sector. Americanist. Often supports Business Nationalism due to its isolationist emphasis. Anti-Globalist, yet support unilateralist national security militarism. Repressive towards scapegoated targets below them on socio-economic ladder.

. Paleoconservatives--Ultra-conservatives and reactionaries. Natural financial oligarchies preserve the republic against democratic mob rule. Usually nativist (White Nationalism), sometimes antisemitic or Christian nationalist. Elitist emphasis is similar to the intellectual conservative revolutionary wing of the European New Right. Often libertarian.

. White Nationalism (White Racial Nationalists)--Alien cultures make democracy impossible. Cultural Supremacists argue different races can adopt the dominant (White) culture; Biological Racists argue the immutable integrity of culture, race, and nation. Segregationists want distinct enclaves, Separatists want distinct nations. Americanist. Tribalist emphasis is similar to the race-is-nation wing of the European New Right.

. Extreme Right (Ultra Right)--Militant forms of revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism. Reject pluralist democracy for an organic oligarchy that unites the homogeneic nation. Conspiracist views of power that are overwhelmingly antisemitic. Home to overt neofascists, neonazis, Christian Identity, Creativity (Church of the Creator), National Alliance.

See the Chart at the PRA website
Chart is copyright 2005, Political Research Associates

This all may seem overwhelming at first, but in a nation where many people have elaborate systems for tracking sports scores or soap opera plots, it is a reasonable expectation that people who want to successfully challenge dominionists and theocrats can walk up the learning curve and appreciate the view from the top.

The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy - Part Five
By Chip Berlet Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 03:44:42 PM EST
topic: Reconstruction & Dominion section:Front Page

author info
The day after Christmas, Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind Prophecy Club" sent out its daily e-mail message with a 2005 "Year in Review" summary The teaser stated: "Are we living in the End Times? Could events of today signify that the Rapture and Tribulation could occur during our generation? Five important Signs from 2005 say yes!"
What were the five signs?

. 1) Devastating natural disasters foreshadow the coming of Christ.

. 2) The Jewish population converges in Israel to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.

. 3) A union between Europe and Iraq could set the stage for the emergence of the Antichrist.

. 4) Islamic extremists lash out with London bombings and France riots.

. 5) Putin consolidates power in Russia, as the empire rebuilds.

In the text that follows, we learn that "events in Russia are exactly what we should expect to see if we are nearing the end times....the rule of the Antichrist may not be too far behind...[the] Bible prophesies that the city of Babylon will be rebuilt as headquarters for the antichrist. Babylon lies on the Euphrates River, just 50 miles south of Baghdad."

We also are told that "...continued tensions may make Israel ripe for a covenant with the Antichrist," and that the "ancient Sanhedrin, the official legal tribunal in Israel...issued an official call to rebuild the temple [of Solomon in Jerusalem], an act that God's Word predicts must occur before the return of the Messiah."

Meanwhile, natural disasters may be "a foreshadowing of the overwhelming chaos that is to transpire during the tribulation, prompting many to repent before it's too late."

That last piece of advice is what the Left Behind series is all about. It is future narrative devoted to encouraging current salvation through a particular premillennial reading of the Bible. It's not enough to be a Christian, you must embrace a narrow and specific version of Christianity. Otherwise, you are not just going to Hell, but you will be persecuted and maybe tortured and murdered as well.

That's the basic theme of the Left Behind series of novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. The 13 volumes have sold some 70 million copies, regularly hitting best seller lists. As pop theology, the messages of the series and the Left Behind Prophecy Club are troubling, but as popular political ideology, they are dangerous.

As part of its sales pitch for a subscription service, we are told that "The Left Behind Prophecy Club has the news you need to know" about:

Islamic Terrorism
Middle East Peace Process
The War in Iraq
Europe's Power Struggle
Natural Disasters

The way these current events are woven into a discussion of Biblical prophecy creates frames of reference that help move people toward specific political viewpoints, not just concerning U.S. policies in the Middle East, but also about domestic issues.

Central to this process is a particular way of reading the Bible's book of Revelation that establishes a timetable and sequence of events for the End Times and the Tribulations that are related to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

According to polling by Barna research, "nearly nine out of ten evangelicals who believe in the end times (88%) maintain that is it very likely that Jesus will return during the last days, and 77% of born agains who believe in the end times indicated the same."

Tim LaHaye has spent decades melding his conspiracy theory of history into the End Times beliefs of evangelicals. In his 1980 non-fiction book The Battle for the Mind, LaHaye added a conspiracist theme to the critique of secular humanism put forward by popular theologian Francis A. Schaeffer, a conservative Christian evangelical. LaHaye dedicated the book to Schaeffer.

In a chapter entitled "Is a Humanist Tribulation Necessary?" LaHaye writes that the "seven-year tribulation period will be a time that features the rule of the anti-Christ over the world." LaHaye explains that this "tribulation is predestined and will surely come to pass." LaHaye, however, describes another period of tribulations that he calls the "pre-tribulation tribulation."

LaHaye, explains that the "pre-tribulation tribulation is:
"...the tribulation that will engulf this country if liberal secular humanists are permitted to take control of our government--it is neither predestined nor necessary. But it will deluge the entire land in the next few years, unless Christians are willing to become much more assertive in defense of morality and decency than they have been during the past three decades."

According to LaHaye, adultery, pornography, and homosexuality "are rampant" and this is evidence of the warning by Schaeffer's "that humanism always leads to chaos." In the Left Behind series, LaHaye and Jenkins write about the spread of humanist moral relativism in the forms of the feminist movement, abortion, and homosexuality. The Left Behind series takes the conspiracist themes of LaHaye's non-fiction books and spreads them through a huge audience.

The apocalyptic frames and conspiracist narratives in the Left Behind series are a form of "fiction explicitly intended to teach," according to author Gershom Gorenberg, who warns:

"Inspiration is part of the appeal. Subliminally, so is the all-encompassing paradigm the books offer for understanding the world. Here's how the global economy (which may have cost me my job or halved my retirement savings) works. Here's what lies behind debate over abortion or foreign policy. Some people serve God, and some serve falsehood. Here's why a believing Christian can feel left out: Today's society is controlled by evil. And here's why cataclysmic war between the forces of good and the axis of evil is inevitable."
The LaHaye conspiracy theory about secular humanism provides a powerful theological justification for Christians to establish "dominion" over sinful secular society.

Fishwrap Early Edition

2007-08-24T14:44:00.000-07:00

(Since I'm pretty sure the Times-Call won't publish this, thought I'd post it here. - MDW)

A recent editorial opined: "Doesn’t it make sense for Longmont to extend a welcoming hand rather than to always be in second place regarding this proposal that will bring a number of positive benefits to the area?"

How something that has SO many questions about tax revenue can be seen to be a positive thing baffles me. The City stands to take a tremendous loss even if this development somehow does work out the way the church-paid consultants say it will. God have mercy on us if things go badly - as they routinely do in the construction business.

Speaking of construction, isn't it odd that a prominent construction company owner is standing up as a representative for the church? Kind of like having a coyote representing a flock of sheep; except it's US that will be getting fleeced.

The LifeBridge church is using it's status as a tax-emempt entity to hoodwink the taxpayers of Longmont - and we should NOT allow it. You can become part of the growing movement to undo this fiscal insanity and stop the 'Unholy Union' by going to www.whatsinitforlongmont.com for more information.

Longmont Election Code

2007-08-18T16:55:00.000-07:00

Longmont Municipal Code, from City of Longmont website.

Chapter 2.04 deals with Elections.

The text below is the complete Chapter 2.04.

2.04.204 Contributions.

A. No person shall act as a conduit for a contribution.
B. Notwithstanding any other section of this Act to the contrary, a candidate committee may receive a loan from a financial institution organized under state or federal law if the loan bears the usual and customary interest rate, is made on a basis that assures repayment, is evidenced by a written instrument, and is subject to a due date or amortization schedule.
C. All contributions received by a candidate committee, issue committee or political committee shall be deposited in a financial institution in a separate account whose title shall include the name of the committee. All records pertaining to such accounts shall be maintained by the committee for ninety days following any municipal election in which the committee received contributions unless a complaint is filed, in which case they shall be maintained until final disposition of the complaint and any consequent litigation. Such records shall be subject to inspection at any hearing held under this Act.
D. No candidate committee, political committee or issue committee shall accept a contribution, or make an expenditure, in currency or coin exceeding one hundred dollars.
E. No person shall make a contribution to a candidate committee, issue committee or political committee with the expectation that some or all of the amounts of such contribution will be reimbursed by another person. No person shall be reimbursed for a contribution made to any candidate committee, issue committee or political committee, nor shall any person make such reimbursement except as provided in subsection B of this section. (Ord. 0-2000-36 § 1 (part))

2.04.207 Disclosure.

A. All candidate committees, political committees, and issue committees shall report to the city clerk their contributions received, including the name and address of each person who has contributed twenty dollars or more; expenditures made; and obligations entered into by the committee or party.
B. 1. Such reports that are required to be filed with the city clerk shall be filed on the twenty-first day and on the Wednesday before and thirty days after the election in election years and annually in off-election years on the first day of the month in which the anniversary of the election occurs.
a. For purposes of this section, “election year” means each year in which the particular candidate committee’s candidate, or issue committee’s issue, appears on the ballot as part of a municipal election.
b. If the reporting day falls on a weekend or legal holiday, the report shall be filed by the close of the next business day.
c. The reports required by this section shall include the balance of funds at the beginning of the reporting period, the total of contributions received, the total of expenditures made during the reporting period, and the name and address of the financial institution used by the committee.

NOTE - #2 is missing - this is as it appeared on the Longmont City Website. -DW

3. All reports filed with the city clerk under this subsection B shall be subject to the following:
a. The reporting period for all reports required to be filed with the city clerk shall close two calendar days before the effective day of filing.
b. The deadline for the report due on the Wednesday before the election shall be noon. The deadline for all other reports required in subsection (B)(1) of this section shall be close of business on the date due.
c. The city clerk shall, after consultation with the city attorney, cause publication on the following Saturday and Sunday, in a newspaper of general circulation within the city, a summary of each report filed the Wednesday before a polling place election or filed on the twenty-first day before a mail ballot election, and for each such report that is not timely filed, a statement identifying the respective candidate, candidate committee, political committee or issue committee and stating the fact of such failure to report.
d. The reporting period for the report due thirty calendar days after a regular municipal election shall close on the last day of the calendar month in which the election was held and shall be filed no later than the thirtieth calendar day following the election.
e. The reporting period for the report due thirty calendar days after a special municipal election shall close twenty-five calendar days after the date on which such election was held, and the report shall be filed no later than the thirtieth calendar day following such election.
C. All candidate committees, political committees and issue committees shall register with the city clerk before accepting or making any contributions. Registration shall include a statement listing:
1. The organization’s full name, spelling out any acronyms used therein;
2. A natural person authorized to act as a registered agent;
3. A street address and telephone number for the principal place of operations;
4. All affiliated candidates and committees;
5. The purpose or nature of interest of the committee or party.
D. Any political committee whose purpose is the recall of any elected official shall file a statement of organization with the city clerk within ten business days of receiving its first contribution. Reports of contributions and expenditures shall be filed with the city clerk within fifteen days of the filing of the statement of organization and every thirty days thereafter until the date of the recall election has been established and then fourteen days and seven days before the recall election and thirtydays following the recall election.
E. The city clerk shall, after consultation with the city attorney, cause publication on the following Saturday and Sunday, in a newspaper of general circulation within the city, a summary of each report filed seven days before a polling place recall election or filed fourteen days before a mail ballot recall election, and for each such report that is not timely filed, a statement identifying the respective candidate, candidate committee, political committee or issue committee and stating the fact of suchfailure to report. (Ord. 0-2000-36 § 1 (part))

Why Christians Oppose LifeBridge Annex

2007-08-17T12:50:00.000-07:00

Those of us who are concerned with the religious agenda of this church and its development corporation (who are actually one and the same) are not anti-religion or anti-Christian.

We opposed the LifeBridge annexation partly, and in some cases mostly, because of the connection to religion and we are serving as the "canary in the coal mine." We see the legal and political problems that lie ahead and the damage that will follow. It's our clarion call to members of our community who, for one reason or another, are not always able to devote the time and attention to such pivotal and defining issues. Unfortunately, all too often some become aware only after the fact.

All Americans, all Coloradans are free to believe anything we choose whether political or religious, or anything else for that matter. The objection arises when a political group seeks to create a "permanent majority" by any means necessary, or when a religious group is not satisfied with living according to their own beliefs but instead seeks to impose those beliefs and their specific dogma on the population at large --like it or not.

This is why the doctrine of separation of church and state was enshrined in our Constitution. It protects religious believers of all varieties from interference by a particular variety. It is why the foundation of our government is in fact and inherently secular in nature.

America's population has always been diverse although this diversity has taken on different interpretations over the centuries since the first immigrants arrived. This diversity is not limited to the usual categories; it applies to the arts, education, science, business, social sciences, sport, and so on. Cross-fertilization when honestly embraced is certain to enhance the present and future for us all. The imposition of a singular and narrow ideology or theology will inevitably destroy us.

Again, don't be put off by what the Longmont City Council did on August 14th. There will be other mayors and city councils and we need you to help make this happen. Who knows, this may not yet be over."

Kaye Fissinger

No Surprise

2007-08-15T09:15:00.000-07:00

Well, our 'Council' has proven who runs Longmont - the religious loonies.

Doug Brown's already braying about running for Mayor - maybe he should reconsider... if the LifeBridge Annex goes as badly wrong as I suspect it will, he'll have to wear it around his neck like an albatross for his entire term.

Message to all the exiting Council members that voted for this bullshit: when this massive ripoff really starts to hurt the City, you can COUNT on having YOUR names attached to it - again and again and again.

So you might want to get on your knees right now and start praying in earnest.

Hotting Up

2007-08-09T22:22:00.000-07:00

Well, the Rocky Mountain News has gotten into the act.

I love how they referred to this blog: "At least one anti-Union blogger objects to what he sees as a massive influx of Republicans."

But of course -no- reference to the blog itself. Nice. And the fishwrappers wonder why we don't respect them.

City Council Thinks Yer Lazy (and Stoopid)

2007-07-31T18:30:00.000-07:00

In response to a letter from my wife, distinguished (extinguished?) councilperson Mary Blue had this to say:

"I, personally, do not believe the average city voter would be willing nor have the time to learn as much about the issue. A city election would be very destructive for Longmont, both in terms of emotional hurt and the dollars spent by both sides that could go toward more beneficial uses."

"I also feel that because this development will take place anyway, I'd rather see it under Longmont's control than right outside our east border. 4C is asking for some concessions that they will not receive, on others we will reach a compromise. They are being held to the same standard as any other developer."
---
Uh, Mary... babe... if we'd KNOWN ABOUT IT... hell yah we'd have wanted to know more! Look at the (very short) poll results! In less than a week over 500 of Longmont's 'lazy' residents stood up and clearly said 'no' to this development. I think what scares you people is knowing that if more of the City had known about this sooner, it would have been torpedoed faster than the Andrea Doria.

Also, this fixated attitude about development that "will happen" is getting @#& annoying. Maybe Bruns Construction needs it to happen (those new custom homes ain't cheap), but Longmont sure the hell doesn't.

An election could be 'destructive' ...? WTF? Since when is democracy destructive? Oh yeah, since the GOP took over and made rape and pillage the order of the day (provided you were carrying a cross and shouting biblical passages). "Emotional hurt"? You mean the folks that wouldn't make a pile o' money and be unable to pay for their expensive lifestyles? Yeah, I can see how that would be agonizingly painful.

The more I find out about this 'non church' development, the more angry it makes me. Doug Brown's hostile rejoinder at the last Council meeting: "it's all on tape" is some pretty weak tea. We trust you people and then come to find out you're making deals with religious loonies and raping the City's tax base. Yeah, it's 'on tape', just like Nuremburg. *spit*

Where their money (and their mouth) is

2007-07-29T10:55:00.000-07:00

Open Secrets says it all. Any questions?

Contributor	Occupation	Date	Amount	Recipient
ANDERSEN, DEAN GREELEY,CO 80631	CONSTRUCTION	10/15/1996	$200	Allard, Wayne
BARTRAN, WILLIAM TIMNATH,CO 80547	CONSTRUCTION	10/10/1996	$500	Allard, Wayne
BARTRAN, WILLIAM TIMNATH,CO 80547	CONSTRUCTION	6/25/1996	$500	Allard, Wayne
BARTRAN, WILLIAM TIMNATH,CO 80547	CONSTRUCTION	12/3/2001	$258	Allard, Wayne
BARTRAN, WILLIAM TIMNATH,CO 80547	CONSTRUCTION	8/11/2002	$250	Allard, Wayne
BARTRAN, WILLIAM TIMNATH,CO 80547	CONSTRUCTION	9/6/1995	$250	Allard, Wayne
BARTRAN, WILLIAM TIMNATH,CO 80547	CONSTRUCTION	2/5/1994	$200	Allard, Wayne
BEHUNIN, ROBERT MR ARVADA,CO 80005	CONSTRUCTION	8/3/2004	$250	National Republican Congressional Cmte
CANNON, PAT PLATTEVILLE,CO 80504	CONSTRUCTION	2/6/1998	$250	Safari Club International
CHINIQUY, RON GREELEY,CO 80631	CONSTRUCTION L L C	2/16/1999	$300	National Republican Congressional Cmte
CORNWELL, DAVID FORT MORGAN,CO 80701	CONSTRUCTION	10/6/1997	$250	National Republican Congressional Cmte
DAVIS, REES ENGLEWOOD,CO 80112	CONSTRUCTION	9/3/1999	$200	Allard, Wayne
DILLON, KAREN ARVADA,CO 80007	CONSTRUCTION	6/17/2004	$500	Schaffer, Bob
GARCIA, DIEDRA LAKEWOOD,CO 80215	CONSTRUCTION	10/26/2004	$1,000	Salazar, Ken
GARCIA, JOE R DENVER,CO 80221	CONSTRUCTION	8/19/2004	$250	Salazar, Ken
GARCIA, JOSE R DENVER,CO 80221	CONSTRUCTION	10/16/2004	$250	Salazar, Ken
GARCIA, RAYMOND A JR LAKEWOOD,CO 80215	CONSTRUCTION	6/16/2004	$1,000	Salazar, Ken
GARCIA, RAYMOND A JR LAKEWOOD,CO 80215	CONSTRUCTION	8/10/2004	$1,000	Salazar, Ken
GARCIA, RAYMOND A JR LAKEWOOD,CO 80215	CONSTRUCTION	8/19/2004	$1,000	Salazar, Ken
INMAN, ROBERT M DENVER,CO 80210	CONSTRUCTION	7/22/1999	$250	Bush, George W
JOHNSON, BRAD BROOMFIELD,CO 80020	CONSTRUCTION	9/25/1998	$200	Eggert, William F
KEITH SWERDFEGER PUEBLO WEST,CO 81007	CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR/SELF	5/1/2003	$500	Musgrave, Marilyn
KEITH SWERDFEGER PUEBLO WEST,CO 81007	CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR/SELF	5/1/2003	$500	Musgrave, Marilyn
KELLY, LAWRENCE DENVER,CO 80235	CONSTRUCTION	3/30/2004	$2,000	Salazar, Ken
KELLY, LAWRENCE DENVER,CO 80235	CONSTRUCTION	3/30/2004	$2,000	Salazar, Ken
KLEBOLD, LARRY BROOMFIELD,CO 80020	CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT	8/2/1996	$250	National Republican Congressional Cmte
KLEBOLD, LARRY BROOMFIELD,CO 80020	CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT	1/18/1996	$250	National Republican Congressional Cmte
LAYBOURN, ROYAL BASALT,CO 81621	CONSTRUCTION	7/22/1998	$250	Lamm, Dorothy V
LEWANDOWSKI, HENRY FORT COLLINS,CO 80527	CONSTRUCTION	11/28/1995	$200	Allard, Wayne
LEWANDOWSKI, HENRY FORT COLLINS,CO 80527	CONSTRUCTION	10/29/1996	$200	Allard, Wayne
LIVINGSTON, PATRICIA A DENVER,CO 80210	CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY	9/10/2004	$1,500	Salazar, Ken
MARTINEZ, ROBERT A CASTLE ROCK,CO 80104	CONSTRUCTION	7/21/2000	$500	Thomas, Jesse L
MCMURREN, TED GREELEY,CO 80634	CONSTRUCTION	6/10/1996	$500	Sullivan, Patrick J
MILLER, WILLIAM D ENGLEWOOD,CO 80110	CONSTRUCTION	12/8/1995	$1,000	Colorado Republican Campaign Cmte
MONKS, ROBERT E COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80904	CONSTRUCTION	6/7/1996	$1,000	National Republican Congressional Cmte
MONKS, ROBERT E COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80904	CONSTRUCTION	8/10/1998	$250	National Republican Congressional Cmte
MORLAN, DAVE DENVER,CO 80221	CONSTRUCTION NEGOTIATORS	9/16/1996	$5,000	Colorado Republican Campaign Cmte
NASSI, CRAIG DENVER,CO 80204	CONSTRUCTION	12/13/2001	$500	Strickland, Tom
NEENAN, DAVID FT COLLINS,CO 80525	CONSTRUCTION	4/1/2004	$1,000	Schaffer, Bob
NEENAN, DAVID FT COLLINS,CO 80525	CONSTRUCTION	7/9/2004	$200	Schaffer, Bob
PATRICIA TURNER LOVELAND,CO 80537	CONSTRUCTION/LPRCONSTRUCTION CO.	5/1/2003	$250	Musgrave, Marilyn
POPOVICH, STEVE LOVELAND,CO 80537	CONSTRUCTION	9/17/1996	$233	Safari Club International
RATZLAFF, ALAN MONTROSE,CO 81401	CONSTRUCTION	7/30/1996	$225	Republican National Cmte
SAMPLES, JOHN A BRUSH,CO 80723	CONSTRUCTION	3/7/1994	$500	Latham, Tom
SHARON SWERDFEGER PUEBLO WEST,CO 81007	CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR/SELF	5/1/2003	$500	Musgrave, Marilyn
SHARON SWERDFEGER PUEBLO WEST,CO 81007	CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR/SELF	5/1/2003	$500	Musgrave, Marilyn
SMITH, ROGER LITTLETON,CO 80120	CONSTRUCTION	12/9/1995	$250	Miller, Pat
SPEIDEL, STEPHEN COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80904	CONSTRUCTION	3/4/2000	$250	Barr, Bob
STAHL, STEPHANIE DENVER,CO 80231	CONSTRUCTION	9/23/2004	$225	Thune, John
STEPHENSON, RICHARD CARBONDALE,CO 81623	CONSTRUCTION	8/31/1998	$1,000	Campbell, Ben Nighthorse
STEPHENSON, RICHARD CARBONDALE,CO 81623	CONSTRUCTION	7/3/1997	$500	Campbell, Ben Nighthorse
TORREZ, LORENZO LITTLETON,CO 80127	CONSTRUCTION	3/28/1996	$250	National Republican Congressional Cmte
WAGNER, J E DENVER,CO 80217	CONSTRUCTION	6/13/2000	$500	Thomas, Jesse L
WAGNER, J E DENVER,CO 80217	CONSTRUCTION	7/5/2000	$500	Thomas, Jesse L
WAPPELHORST, WILLIAM CENTENNIAL,CO 80112	CONSTRUCTION	9/30/2002	$500	Allard, Wayne
WILLIAMS, DOUGLAS G GOLDEN,CO 80401	CONSTRUCTION	12/27/1997	$250	Safari Club International
ZENDER, RICHARD D LAKEWOOD,CO 80215	CONSTRUCTION	9/30/2004	$300	Salazar, Ken

LifeBridge vote put on hold

2007-07-29T10:41:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6455624

LifeBridge vote put on hold
Longmont's council wants to examine tax-exempt issues in huge development project
By Monte Whaley Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 07/25/2007 01:43:56 AM MDT

Longmont - The City Council voted late Tuesday night to hold off on annexing a church's massive development project - including homes, worship centers and a sports arena - because of questions over its tax-exempt status.

LifeBridge Christian Church wants the city to annex for development 348 acres of land north of Colorado 119 near Union Reservoir. The proposal includes 317 houses, apartments and condominiums; 57 acres of religious and civic space; 40 acres of mixed-use commercial, retail and office space; and a 150,000-square-foot sports arena used for worship services.

In all, LifeBridge plans to build three cathedrals over the next 50 years. Developers say the area will eventually employ 2,000 people and generate $200,000 annually in revenue for the city.

But the City Council wants staff members to further clarify what in the project is exempt from taxation because of its religious affiliation. The annexation vote is set for Aug. 14.

Some residents Tuesday night claimed at a public hearing that the church is taking advantage of its tax-exempt status - something not available to other commercial developers. The sheer size of the development is also causing concern.

"I believe very strongly this proposal should be left to the vote of the people because this will change this community for years to come," said resident Duane Leise.

The proposal has won preliminary approval from most council members. But they also pushed the city to determine exactly what parts of the development would be tax exempt.

Planners said last week that much of the development - except for church worship centers, a fellowship hall, classrooms and offices - should be taxed and included in the city's annexation agreement with the church.

Church member and developer Dale Bruns said the new annexation agreement would force the church to develop most of its campus outside of Longmont in neighboring Weld County.

Read the rest

Who is Dale Bruns?

2007-07-29T10:23:00.000-07:00

Who is Dale Bruns?

Dale Bruns appears to have the ultimate power to make decisions for both the LifeBridge Church organization and the 4-C Corporation. What do we (the public) really know about this seemingly very important individual? Is Dale Bruns an elder of LifeBridge Church? Is he on the Board of Directors of 4-C Corporation? For such a high profile person who speaks for both organizations it is not publicly known what his actual capacity is?

He sends a letter to the City of Longmont stating that if the provision 13.16 of the revised annexation agreement is not removed LifeBridge will not sign the agreement. Provision 13.16 protects the taxpayers from lost of revenue from 4-C Corporation tax exempt status.

In the Weld County annexation proceedings he thanks the Commissioners for their decision as the representative of LifeBridge Church! In communications with the City of Longmont he represents the 4-C Corporation although he is not on their Board of Directors.

The only thing the public knows for sure is Dale Bruns is the owner of Bruns Concrete and Construction Co. The construction company is a profit Company. It is also understood that Mr. Bruns is a well-connected and wealthy member of the Longmont community.

In the interest of transparency both Mr. Bruns and LifeBridge should disclose who the decision makers are: who are the actual elders of LifeBridge and exactly what is the connection of Mr. Bruns with both of these organizations! Mr. Bruns may have the power to influence the City Council but he doesn’t control public opinion!

Richard Hansen
Longmont, CO

Visiblity

2007-07-29T00:44:00.001-07:00

Longmont Wakes Up

2007-07-28T14:30:00.000-07:00

Fascinating. After months of nearly-no-coverage, the Times Call’s online presence (http://www.timescall.com/) suddenly has a poll up about LifeBridge Christian Church’s Annex. Golly. It’s right on the front page - go vote and leave a comment.

GO VOTE NOW

Here’s the results as of 3:11pm MT (waves at Bob) :

and here’s a sampling of the comments:

Tax them and they will not come, all the better. I loved the comment “They should be required to add a pawn shop, used car dealer and at least 2 check cashing stores to make sure that it keeps with the spirit of Longmont.” Truer words were never spoken. Give it to Weld County and good riddence.

Longmont will be just another Colorado Springs for northern Colorado. I don’t want a religious commune in my city.

Sounds like Jim Jones and the peoples temple to me.

This whole Life Bridge thing confuses me. It sounds like they are saying, let me move into your back yard, you supply the power, gas, water, etc.. Provide a police and fire department, and other services, but by the way, we will not pay the bill, you will. Will the tax revenue from the Union Project be able enough to cover all Longmont’s expenses? Can someone enlighten me on this? Please.

Sure, why not more homes? Lets eliminate a few more jobs while were at it too! Or maybe we can build another walmart, and all work there.

“I was hungry and you gave Me… a shopping mall? Thirsty, and you gave Me an events center? Naked and you gave Me an office building. Sick and you built Me an apartment complex.” Hmm… I’ve never seen that in the Bible…

They have as much right as anybody to build. We should in no way permit it to be tax exempt. The houses and businesses are personal property and not designed for religious worship.

I agree that the fact that a church has taken this on is not the biggest issue. But Longmont doesn’t need to look at this deal as if we owe anything to help it along. Only if it’s right for the city should the city annex this development. I think that people object to the “enclave” aspect of LifeBridge, a separation from the rest of us while wanting all the same services. Fine, but the city should not be compelled to make any concessions or lose money.

I understand the fear of letting Weld County take over the property and allow anything to happen….but it doesn’t seem like Longmont is doing much better by giving every exemption the church asks for. Exemptions on building heights, density, and required affordable housing. How can a church, which represents compassion, want to minimize the affordable homes it builds, and not even allow them on their property, next to their $800,000 homes. That’s not the kind of church I believe in.

How may more houses do we need in Longmont? Currently there are over 800 homes on the market.

As someone has already stated, churches are NOT businesses, and one that wants to build a “complex” has become a builder and should not receive the tax exemption. What’s more, I find the entire idea of it not just a bit disconcerting that there is even a plan for this type of “community” at Longmont’s edge. A church should have a church alone and see to the spiritual needs of its congregation…this is just too much. Becoming a developer with shops and neighborhoods, that’s materialism at its finest, but is it a church?

Please limit the extent and duration of “vested” development rights so that future city leaders will have sufficient flexibility to protect the interests of the city as a whole.

Why shouldn’t churches build developments? There’s no scriptural or theological basis in Christianity for this kind of “kingdom” building on earth. It’s an effort to serve both God and Mammon, which is just wrong. From the standpoint of public policy, as long as there’s the possibility of exemption from taxes, I don’t think it is in the public interest for this to be built. As it stands, it’s an entity that will ultimately place claims on all the benefits of public services, while having none of the fiscal responsibility the rest of us bear.

A church is entitled to tax exempt status. However, church funded housing and businesses SHOULD NOT be tax exempt. Lifebridge, whose weekly operating costs well exceed $60,000, stands to make a huge profit from this development and should be subject to the same taxes as any other developer. What would your opinion be if it were a Muslim organization trying to do the same thing?

They should be required to add a pawn shop, used car dealer and at least 2 check cashing stores to make sure that it keeps with the spirit of Longmont.

The only issue I have with the Life Bridge Community is what is taxable. The only part of that place that should be tax exempt should be the church it self. If the rest of the community, including the stadium, is subject to regular taxes, then build it. If the entire place is tax exempt, then I am going to start my own church.

I urge everyone to visit www.whatsinitforlongmont.org! Lifebridge “4C” has much more planned for this development than we know. Where is the separation of Church and State? They do not deserve special privilages! Develop with the same rules as all of the others! Be Smart Longmont, NOTHING good will come of this. Maybe a few tax dollars (except all of the $$ that is exempt from tax), but we can create tax revenue with other builders! Churches should not be businesses! There is a TREMENDOUS amount of profit in this development, why cant they be treated like everyone else…Longmont Owes Lifebridge Nothing.

Corporation for Community Christian Connection

2007-07-26T19:03:00.000-07:00

Barb Brunk representing the LifeBridge Church annexation effort states, "No one is trying to shirk the responsibility to pay appropriate taxes in the city of Longmont." During the course of the council meeting Brunk was asked about future schools in the development, to which she replied that although she did not know what form these schools would take, "students would be educated appropriately." The word "appropriate" seemed to be one of her favorites and I'm confident that it will by defined by LifeBridge Church, not the City Council or the citizens of Longmont. My friends, this is a hedge word, and a code word for religious. Of the nearly 350-acre development, the 4C corporation admits that 20% to 30% will be devoted to tax-exempt religious activities. I ask you, "How much of the remaining development will the church deem in-appropriately taxable?"

Brunk's claim that "the church is not the developer" is ludicrous.

4C stands for
Corporation for
Community
Christian
Connection

and both
the church
and 4C
share board members.

How dense do they think we are? No other church has ever attempted such a mammoth project as this in the city of Longmont. Ask yourself, could there be another agenda at work here.

Some say that the project will be built, if not in Longmont, then in Weld County. It shouldn't be built at all!

by Kaye Fissinger

Dos Minions

2007-07-12T19:29:00.000-07:00

This is precisely what I'm afraid of happening to Longmont; takeover by the worst religious extremists in America. People that believe there is "a mandate for Christian stewardship in civil affairs."

These are the people that put our current chimperor into office - twice. They have a lot of money (can you say Walmart? how about Home Depot?) they're ruthless and, I personally feel, are the moral equivalent of Nazis. All they did was straighten out the 'twisted cross' and now all the twistiness is inside them.

From the Wikipedia:

According to Frederick Clarkson the terms "soft" and "hard" Dominionism are "used by outside observers to understand a complex yet vitally important trend. So for people trying to figure out if a conservative politician, organization, or religious leader is "dominionist," I notice three characteristics that bridge both the hard and the soft kind".^[15] Writes Clarkson:

"Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy."
"Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity."
"Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles."^[15]

^{If you agree with any of the three bullet points above, you may be a Dominionist. Shit, if you're a Dominionist you were probably raised by parents who lived in a sealed-off little bubble just like the one LifeBridge* wants to build right next to Longmont.

Oh, and let me hasten to point out they want to mostly-surround a large source of water. Hm. If there's a disaster, want to lay odds on whether or not they'll help their fellow man? Guess again, heathens.

My friend Kaye Fissinger spoke at the same City Hall meeting, but I didn't get her remarks till now - she gave a great address and highlighted some crucial facts, I recommend you read it.}

LIFE BRIDGE ANNEXATION
by Kaye Fissinger

It is only recently that the issue of the LifeBridge Annexation has come to my attention. I stand in extremely strong opposition to this plan.

While the organization planning this development has organized and incorporated itself as a development company, I do not believe that this is its underlying objective.

From my research into LifeBridge Church and its links, affiliates and acolytes, I strongly believe that the overriding objective is religious Dominionism. For those not familiar with Dominionism, simply stated it is the seizure of earthly power by self-identified “people of God.” Dominionists are committed to the political action necessary to restore the earth to God’s control as they define God. I further submit to you that the initial plans for constructing a sports arena and million-dollar-plus homes are intended to bankroll this overriding religious/political agenda.

Should this project be allowed and completed, it will increase the population of Longmont over the next 50 years by as much as 60% over its current level, undoubtedly with mostly like-minded individuals. Some of these newcomers will likely seek public office at the school-board and city-council level, and probably seek non-elective government positions—all designed to direct and influence public policy.

Furthermore, the LifeBridge Church project seeks to use taxpayer-supported services, such as increased demands on public utilities and transportation and a dedicated new fire station to name a few. Moreover, the development company also opposes the Longmont Affordable Housing program, a highly successful program to which I can personally attest as a participant. While I am an avid supporter of government services to the community, it is anathema for government—any government, including the government of Longmont--to support any established religion or singular religious theology.

I do not want to see Longmont become Focus on the Family, Promise Keepers or Colorado Springs North. I’m 63 years old and a cancer survivor so it likely will not happen in my lifetime, but it will in my daughter’s and granddaughter’s lifetimes who are residents of Longmont, and in the lifetimes of great-grandchildren I don’t yet have.

This annexation proposal carries such severe consequences—socially, politically, financially and environmentally--that if the council is not prepared to vote against it as I would hope and encourage, it should--as a minimum—place this proposal on the November 2008 ballot so that the people of Longmont have sufficient time to become informed about this project, its vast scope and its potential to transform the City of Longmont.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

----
* What names these nutbars pick for their little faith factories... their 'bridges' doesn't go all the way across... if you know what I mean. MDW

Liveblogging from Longmont City Council Meeting

2007-07-10T17:51:00.000-07:00

Tues, July 10, 6:51pm (Hi Bob!!)

Waiting for the 7pm meeting and agenda item 9a - Union Annex. I'll try and summarize the speakers.
--
7:00pm There is a quorum, meeting is under way.
--
Remove item 9G from Consent agenda (action to help stop Meth labs)
Announcements
---
(doing a bit of Googling while I wait - found this)
http://brandon.fuller.name/archives/2004/10/26/21.25.47/

LifeBridge’s Church City Version 2.0

Tonight and for the next 2 nights, the LifeBridge Church is holding open houses to discuss their new and updated plans for building a mega-city behind my house. I went over with some neighbors. The presentation was put on by some of the hired planners — no church members in sight. Here is one of the diagrams. The red arrows points to my house.

LifeBridge has changed their plans from before — for the worse. Instead of a nice buffer between the neighborhoods, they have now filled the area with very dense housing on the scale of 8 homes per acre! That is California living…why do this in the middle of spacious Colorado? The lots in our neighborhood (including open space) average about 1 - 1.5 per acre. That isn’t compatible. Each of those grey sections between streets has 6 to 8 2-story homes in them.

Here were some of the illustrations of how nice the area will be. No illustrations of the 5,000 car parking lot and the member all trying to get out of it after Sunday morning service. For perspective, the mall in our town doesn’t even have a 5,000 car capacity.

Naturally, all the larger home are built up and away from the church near the lake to the North. 2 of the county roads are being “re-aligned” to make room for the 6,000 seat church.

The good news in this is that LifeBridge has to go through the zoning process again because this plan is so radically different than previous plans. I believe that the legal appeal filed by my neighbors and I was a large time setback for the church. So maybe they decided to go around the wait on the appeal and just do a new zoning process. If they lose the appeal, they have to go through the zoning process again anyway. So why wait? This is good news because we now live to plead our case again — and this time we will be louder. Even some neighbors that were previously a fan of the development have now switched sides due to the radical changes.

Another interesting development over the past few months is the approval of a Super Wal*Mart going in right by LifeBridge’s current location. Prior to this, the church’s hands were tied by the city of Longmont because they were not allowed to grow in their current location. Since then, that has changed and the city is actively developing that area in a big way. The area is going to be revamped to be able to handle the new Wal*Mart’s traffic and other impacts, such as drainage. So what a great thing for the church — build your massive church by the massive Wal*Mart. It is compatible with the surroundings! The infrastructure can support it. Why build in a corn field outside of town? Doesn’t make sense anymore. Oh, maybe it is because the church developers have personally purchased all the land around the new church site and they would lose a good deal of money on that land now.

LifeBridge often prints that this new church site “is part of God’s Will”. Maybe they should take a step back. Maybe this legal lawsuit, the appeal, the change of zoning at the current location, and the improvements in infrastructure by introduction of a Wal*Mart near the church’s current site is all part of God’s plan. Maybe that is truely God’s Will? Religion is a dangerous thing — all believers think God is on their side, even Osama says he is doing “God’s Will”.

Posted: 2004-10-26 at 21:25 MDT in Rants
Tags: lifebridge
-----
So they've not only come up with this insane concept, but they've added to it, made it larger.

There are 11 lots that have -no- street frontage - in plain English that means 'Estates' - no doubt for the blessed Elders. pah. They no doubt object to this development being called an 'enclave'

enclave
n : an enclosed territory that is culturally distinct from the
    foreign territory that surrounds it

----
'culturally distinct' is a major understatement. This will be a veritable cyst, a goiter if you will, on the neck of Longmont. No doubt destined to grow to brobdingnagian proportions, strangling and distorting its victim as it does.
-----------

Here's another fun article from 2005, wherein a LifeBridge functionary called the City 'extortionists' for wanting to tie their two huge developments together.

http://elmshoa.org/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=13

Daily Times-Call: LifeBridge Claims Extortion

The Longmont City Council voted 5-2 to delay LifeBridge Christian Church's plans to develop its current campus on Highway 66. The council contends that both the current campus and the future campus (adjacent to the Elms) should be considered together.

Source: The Daily Times-Call, Page A1, 2005-02-23
By: Trevor Hughes

LONGMONT � A leader of a local church proposing a pair of massive developments that could reshape the city accused Longmont officials of "extortion" Tuesday night, saying the two projects should not be considered in tandem.

The accusation came before the Longmont City Council voted 5-2 to delay LifeBridge Christian Church's plans to develop its current 100-acre campus near the northwest corner of Colo. Highway 66 and U.S. Highway 287. The church wants to redevelop the land into a shopping center backed by high-end homes.

LifeBridge needs to move ahead on that project to help pay for its other development, a 313-acre campus called Project LifeBridge east of the city on Colo. Highway 119. The church wants to annex the current campus into the city because it would make the land more valuable, but has not requested to annex the other parcel. Some city leaders think they should.

"Are we interested in working together with the city on both applications? Yes. Our position hasn�t changed. Are we interested in tying them together? Absolutely not. Are we interested in talking to you about it? Absolutely," LifeBridge secretary-treasurer Bruce Grinnell told the council before the vote.

He continued: "To go ahead and tie the projects together just to me feels like extortion. To tie them together tonight � just reeks of extortion of me. Sorry to use those words, but that�s the way I feel."

By remaining in Weld County, the decades-long Project LifeBridge could be completed for millions of dollars less in building permits and fees. Both pieces of land are adjacent to but outside city limits

Council members suggested that since the church controls two significant projects flanking the city, the two should be considered as a pair to better manage the traffic and other impacts they would bring.

Together, the projects could bring thousands of new residents, shoppers and worshipers to the area. The church already has at least 3,300 congregates.

Tuesday night, Grinnell and LifeBridge consultants asked the city to officially start reviewing the church�s application to annex and develop its current campus. Council members refused on a 5-2 vote, saying they want more information about plans for the current campus.

The church can come back with that information as soon as the next council meeting in two weeks.

The council stopped short of ordering the projects to be combined, but several council members indicated they would not support the redevelopment of the current site unless Project LifeBridge is considered at the same time.

The council has ultimate power to reject or accept LifeBridge�s annexation request for the current campus, and several council members want to use that power as leverage over Project LifeBridge.

"I think we�re very much interested in partnering in both of them because they are going to mean so much to the city of Longmont," said Councilman Roger Lange. "They are of such significance that I would propose that we have these come in as a package."

Under the church�s plans, its current 100-acre campus could be turned into a pedestrian-oriented shopping center with large and small stores, offices and other businesses, fronting Colo. 66. It would be backed by homes on 1- and 5-acre plots. City leaders have for several years envisioned something along those lines for the property, but now say they want more specific information about the proposal.

"They�re the biggest thing that�s happened to us in the near term," Councilman Marty Block said of the two projects. "I don't know that I�m necessarily looking to tie these together in time. It's the commitment I�m looking for. We need to be sincere partners, and that means we�re not saying that we�re starting this journey extorting each other."

Mayor Julia Pirnack and Councilman Doug Brown voted against delaying the church�s request for an annexation referral. Pirnack said the council has plenty of time to review the church�s plans in detail, and can always reject it later.

"I would like to see it move forward," Pirnack said. "This council, if it wants to, can say no at the end of the day when they bring it back for annexation. I�m prepared to do that at the end of the day if it�s not what we want it to be."

Brown said he supported the annexation referral because he wanted to start a community discussion about the best development for the current church campus.

Before the vote, Grinnell said he was "taken aback" by the suggestion the two projects be tied together. Such a proposal has been floating around city hall for months, and church officials have been meeting with council members for more than a year about the projects.

Several council members said they were also taken aback, but by Grinnell�s suggestion they were doing something improper.

"I guess I can add extortionist to my resume," joked one councilman after the meeting. Turning serious he added: "They didn�t get very far (in making a good impression) tonight."

Trevor Hughes can be reached at 303-684-5220, or by e-mail at thughes@times-call.com.

----
Still waiting to hear about 9A...

The alcohol tasting expansion appears to have gone down in flames, but there WILL be alcohol tastings, so that's some consolation.

And on and on the meeting goes... there's a ton of stuff on the agenda tonite, going to be a long wait.
---
Okay, we're up.

A
Kaye Fissinger is speaking and kicking ass. I'll have her remarks added here later.

Whew. I just had my three minutes (felt like 30 seconds).

Here's my remarks (I didn't follow this script precisely)

Good Evening,

Mayor Pirnack, members of Council,

My name is Doug Wray, I live at 2339 Bowen St.

I'm here again to speak against the Union Annex.

A few details that may not be well-known to the public -

* This is part of a larger plan involving another piece of property North of the reservoir.

* The 'long' planning process was partly caused by LifeBridge making changes to their development, so the bleating about that is somewhat less than convincing.

* Only 5% of the development is planned as affordable housing - short shrift for those that Christ referred to as 'the least of us'

* A price of $1400 per house allows this annex to opt out of supporting the local schools - permanently. Apparently 'all the little children' aren't that important anymore.

* There is a cost savings to LifeBridge affored by annexing to the City - a very large cost savings, on the order of tens of millions of dollars.

* In the past, LifeBridge has specifically requested that the City -not- tie this property and another together and called the City 'extortionists' - for suggesting it. LifeBridge secretary-treasurer Bruce Grinnell made that accusation Feb 23rd, 2005. Odd that everyone's so chummy now.

* Metro Service Districts (MSDs) are already notorious for failing - badly - and costing the taxpayers huge sums. They are a mechanism of shifting infrastructure costs to the BUYER.

* There are unanswered questions about exactly -what- taxes >if ANY< that the annexed area will be responsible for

All these things combined with the list of requested exemptions adds up to a huge liability for the City as well as a severe impact on our culture.

The City deserves a vote on this - all of the City.

Water, Water EVERYWHERE

2007-07-09T21:29:00.000-07:00

Quick Summary of what the LifeBridge Union Annex wants from Longmont:

Enough water for 1300 homes (or equivalent)
$12,000,000 (that's millions folks) development cost to City

This is INSANE.

Longmont, it's time to raise HELL about the Unholy Union.

Right Now.

Get mad. Get Up. GET INVOLVED.

Come to the City Council meeting tomorrow - Tuesday July 9, 7:00pm - earlier if you want to speak, you have to sign up. DO SPEAK OUT.

----
Report to City Council from Director of Public Works
----
Mayor and Council: Below is an update to the staff's evaluation of the water service costs to the Union annexation. This evaluation compares service by the Longs Peak & Left Hand Water districts with service from the City as requested by Council Member Benker. Staff has previously completed this evalaution and informed the Council that there is a cost differential to provide water service to the property, and I understand that the applicants have also noted this as well. This most recent update to the costs reflects our current understanding of the water service options for the development and should be used for comparative purposes rather than hard costs to construct systems given the estimates are not based on final engineering plans.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning the information below. As shown below and given the assumptions made, the cost differential would be in the range of $14,000,000 to $23,000,000 at full build out of the development.

Assumptions:
Water service for 1,300 equivalent (3/4" x 5/8" ) single family taps
Ability to use existing water rights on the property in a raw water irrigation system (dual source)
Future ability of the two water districts to continue to serve
Future availability of C-BT for acquisition to dedicate for transfer to the water districts
Current values only, not accounting for future C-BT cost increases (Longmont dedication set at annexation)
$2,000,000 estimated for construction of a dual system if built
Average lot size for development in Longmont - 7,000 sf
City Raw Water deficit met by acquisition and transfer of Non-Historic Lake McIntosh shares @ $5,000 per share
The evaluation does not consider the rate differential between the City and the Districts

Water service costs for development in Weld County with water service from water districts (rounded):

Scenario #1 - No dual system credit Scenario #2 - Dual system Credit (raw water irrigation system)
Left Hand $21,665 per tap Left Hand $13,860 per tap
Longs Peak $24,490 per tap Longs Peak $17,315 per tap

-------------------------- ----------------------------
Average $23,000 per tap $15,000 per tap

Total Cost $30,000,000 Total Cost $21,000,000

Water service costs for development in the City with water service from City of Longmont (rounded):

Tap cost $9,360,000 (1300 x$7,200 per tap)
Raw Water Deficit $2,358,490 (250 AF / (0.53 AF/share) x $5,000 per share)
----------------
Total in-city cost $12,000,000

Costs for Treated water infrastructure to serve the development:

Off-site infrastructure costs to receive service from Left Hand Water District (from Integra Engineering Technical Memo dated 8/30/06) = $5,250,000

Off-site infrastructure costs to receive service from City of Longmont

4900 lf of 16-inch water line = $90/lf x 4900 lf = $441,000 minus 8-inch water line oversizing 4900 lf of 8-inch water line = $38/lf x 4900 lf = $186,200

Total cost of City of Longmont water infrastructure costs = $441,000 - $186,200 = $254,800

Differential in Water Infrastructure costs between Left Hand Water District and City of Longmont: $5,250,000 - $254,800 = approximately $5,000,000

Summary of overall water costs (Raw Water, Water Taps, and Infrastructure) difference between City and District Service:

Scenario #1 - (No dual system)
($30,000,000 - $12,000,000 + $5,000,000) = $23,000,000

Scenario #2 - (Dual system)
($21,000,000 - $12,000,000 + $5,000,000) = $14,000,000

Therefore, the overall range is from $14,000,000 to $23,000,000

Dale Rademacher, P.E.
Director of Public Works & Water Utilities
phone: 303.651.8355
fax: 303.651.8812
dale.rademacher@ci.longmont.co.us
www.ci.longmont.co.us

It's in the Water

2007-07-09T18:49:00.000-07:00

Well, this just keeps getting more interesting.

The Lifebridge folks came before City Council a while back and called the City 'extortionists' because the City wanted to annex the land east of Union Reservoir. They met with Council and asked that the area not be annexed. Huh?

Turns out the main reason the scions of the holy church (can I get an amenhallelujahparrayzejebuz!) have changed their (oh-so-pious) tune is, you guessed it, money. If there's anything that gets the attention of the LifeBridge elders, it's the sound of good ol' cash money in the collection plate.

Yep, if they have to use Left Hand Water District's services, it could cost them as much as $12 million more than Longmont city water.

$12 million buys a lot of bibles apparently... not to mention luxury housing units for well-heeled political activists.

Don't let this blatant ripoff of our City just slide by - get up, get involved.

City Council meeting tomorrow (July 10th) at 7pm - show up early and sign up to speak. You get three minutes - maybe if enough folks speak out we can put this to a vote.

That's how they do things in Democracies.

Don't sit back and hope for the best - get involved. Tell your neighbor, write to the paper, call the Mayor and Council - say NO to LifeBridge's Unholy Union.

New Railroad in Longmont

2007-06-19T20:18:00.000-07:00

Well, it's funny... I used to think there was only one railroad in Longmont - apparently there's a second one and it runs through the Longmont City Council chambers.

Having tried very hard to pull the 'safety cord' on this runaway loco (and I choose that word with care) I've come to realize there's no stopping 'this train' cause it don't pull no 'sleepers'.

Sadly, the entire town of Longmont is either fast asleep and dreaming of their next overseas holiday or eagerly calling their neighbor about how 'their community' is going to happen.

It's past time to wake up folks.

The Union (Lifebridge) Annex is going to change Longmont Fundamentally... and permanently.

Think Fort Collins with more of a Southern Baptist drawl.

Oh yes, if you run a business that isn't approved of, you can be sure of unending harrassment. Why do I say that? Why, look at the slate of upcoming City Council candidates - you'll notice at least one of them (and I daresay several more) are stealth or not-so-stealthy Lifebridge approved good ole boys. Yep. The kind that will eagerly, piously, righteously vote for the next annexation. And the next. And the next.

It's time to dig up the tracks people. Cut the ties in two and pull up the spikes. If we don't derail this crazy train we'll be paying their 'conductor' for the rest of our lives as we watch our town turned into a place that the likes of Dobson and Tancredo would find pleasant.

Oh yes, one last thing - if you're a Democrat, don't even *think* about trying to campaign or canvass in this little cult haven, errr enclave. Somehow I suspect only far, far right candidates will be welcome in this little slice of hell.

I say Hell no. Stop this annexation now. Get involved, write or call City Council:
http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/city_council/members/index.htm

TODAY

Annex and Musgrave

2007-04-13T21:07:00.001-07:00

Our Congressional Representative, Marilyn Musgrave, was recently on a tour through her district to meet voters.

How touching.

I'm reminded of how I was prevented from videotaping her remarks at a Longmont Town Hall.

The petition-deliverers confronted by Police.

The inability to look Michael Schiavo in the face.

The home-school children from Colorado Springs 'blocking' seats at the Windsor debate.

The Generation Joshua children precinct-walking.

Now think about the Union Annex.

Those folks LOVE Musgrave.

Democracy means ALL of us to me. I suspect not so much to Ms. Musgrave and her friends.

Sign the Petition

2007-03-30T09:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.petitiononline.com/NoUnion/petition.html

Please, Longmont residents only. We may contact you for a written signature - please put your address in the comments field.

Not One Word

2007-03-29T16:40:00.001-07:00

Others are Talking

2007-03-29T16:31:00.000-07:00

http://brandon.fuller.name/archives/2004/10/26/21.25.47/

Not the First

2007-03-29T16:11:00.000-07:00

Lifebridge is by no means the first to try this kind of land-grab.
Good grief!! How many churches do we need??

------

http://bcbr.datajoe.com/app/ecom/pub_print_article.php?id=80629

Proposed church projects receive mixed responses

05/12/2006

Source: Boulder County Business Report

Author: S. Clayton Moore

Two large construction projects proposed by LifeBridge Christian Church near Longmont and Rocky Mountain Christian Church in Niwot are meeting with very different responses.

The larger development is Project LifeBridge, a 313-acre church campus and housing development east of Highway 119 in southwest Weld County. 4C, the Corporation for Community Christian Connection, is a nonprofit corporation formed by the church to manage its development. Its master plan proposes a 75-acre religious district encompassing a fellowship hall and three worship auditoriums.

"This is not a church-exclusive community by any stretch," said LifeBridge spokesman Reggie Golden. "In fact, it's an inclusive community. We want people from all religions and all walks of life to be part of it."

4C hopes to partner with local organizations to share nearby buildings including an athletic facility, fine arts auditorium and classroom space. The contiguous community will include 450 homes for active adults and single family, and mixed-use areas along with up to 200,000 square feet of commercial development.

"The fact that the development is at ground zero for about 200,000 over the next decade is positive," said Martin Dickey, chief executive of 4C. "We think the ability to be a multigenerational campus that serves from childhood through active adult makes the project unique. We believe the commercial development will be a significant driver in creating jobs and an incremental tax base for the community."

Weld County's commissioners approved the church's change-of-zoning application and its residential zoning request. However, not everyone has welcomed the new community. In 2003, a group called Citizens for Sensible Development LLC brought a lawsuit against Weld County opposing the development, but it was dismissed by the Colorado Court of Appeals earlier this year.

"I think anytime you develop and try to raise the bar, there is going to be some resistance," Dickey said. "It's human nature. We've tried to embrace that, learn from it and meet those concerns where we can."

Others are piggybacking Project LifeBridge. Local developer Dale Bruns has launched Fairview Estates LLC to build an independent 300-home project on 74 acres of land flanking the planned community.

"It's completely different from the church," Bruns said. "The church has no direct ownership or interest other than the fact that six of our seven developers are members. If we develop our ground at the same time they develop, some of our infrastructure costs will be shared."

Lawsuits over land use

Rocky Mountain Church in Niwot hoped to break ground this year on a $25 million expansion to increase its space from a current 106,000 square feet to a total of 232,000 square feet, but Boulder County found its plan overly intensive and denied the church's request.

"The church has been there for a number of years, but it's in a rural preservation area," said Graham Billingley, Boulder County's land use director. "There were justifiable concerns about the urban nature of the expansion. Their plans conflicted with our comprehensive plan."

The denial led to an exchange of lawsuits. At issue is the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which bars local governments from placing a "substantial burden" on religious institutions.

The church sued the county for violating the act. The county subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action asking the federal district court to decide if it is in violation. The county's attorneys have filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the church's lawsuit, but a final decision could take years.

"It's hard to say when it might be cleared up," said David Hughes, the attorney who is representing the county. "My prediction is that it's going to be a fairly lengthy process."

Rick Thielen, minister of operations, said the church is struggling with its current space. At least one class on Sunday is meeting in a hallway.

"Obviously, we want a favorable decision so the church can grow," he said. "We're moving some groups around to maximize the building, but the choices are getting very slim. We're currently reviewing our service times to see when to add additional services. We know it's going to be a long time, and it's going to be a challenge for us to provide a good environment."

Building for growth

The church has purchased 30 acres in Frederick to build a worship facility, auditorium and classrooms, but it won't handle the overflow from the 2,300 members in Niwot.

"The church that we're building in Weld County is for the growth that is coming in Weld County," Thielen said.

If the church loses its lawsuit, it could potentially appeal to higher courts. It's more likely that one of the 50 similar cases throughout the country will get there first.

"It's just going to be a matter of time before the Supreme Court chooses to hear the issue in the land use context about whether the statute is constitutional or not," Hughes said. "It could be decided before our lawsuit even works its way through the process."

Thielen says attendance is increasing, and he remains optimistic.

"We were disappointed but not discouraged by any means," he said. "You don't have to have significant population growth in order to grow a church. You grow by changing people's lives. We refuse to put a 'no vacancy' sign out front."

If the court decides the county's position is in violation, Boulder County will reverse the decision.

"We don't regularly deny churches, but this location was clearly too much," Billingley said. "I think the commissioners made the appropriate decision under our regulations and our plans. We'll see what the courts have to say."

Creeping Infection

2007-03-29T15:54:00.000-07:00

Doing a little Googlin' for 'Reggie Golden Lifebridge' and I found this article at Square State: http://www.soapblox.net/colorado/showDiary.do?diaryId=481 LifeBridge Continues its Invasion- er- Expansion by: Vestal Vespa Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 11:03:09 AM MDT The Longmont paper had a piece today on the continuing, aggressive expansion of the LifeBridge Church in Greeley. Consider this for a moment:

In an effort to make their 313-acre development plan more compatible to neighbors’ needs, LifeBridge Christian Church leaders will present their case for rezoning today to Weld County planning commissioners.

313 acres. Six Flags over Jesus wants to requisition 313 acres of arable land near Greeley. But here's the crazy part- it's not just for a church. No, the church is actively trying to get the land tax-free (in what I have previously mentioned is the fastest-growing metro area in America) for apartments, condos and shops:

Residents of the nearby Meadow Vale Farm subdivision, however, worry that their mountain views and quiet streets will be disrupted by the hundreds of homes, apartments and businesses LifeBridge hopes to build along with a church and assisted-living and nursing facilities.

What we have here is a church (which, I've heard, is one of those non-churchy churches with more AV equipment than iconography, more show bizness than theology) that has the cash to buy huge tracts of land and use them to make profits, all the while escaping tax obligations.

There is a good Boulder Weekly story on the LifeBridge land grab. My favorite part is a quote by Benjamin Franklin:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

UPDATE: The Lifebridge village has been approved, and plans are moving ahead for development.

How Handmaid's Tale is this quote, from LifeBridge spokesman Reggie Golden:

"We want to provide community space and resources," Golden said. "We believe the community will be proud of the project, and God honored."

it refers to an article at the LongmontFYI site (a cute little "e-newspaper"): http://www.longmontfyi.com/region-story.asp?ID=4193 Funny - the link's borked:

ADODB.Field error '800a0bcd'

Either BOF or EOF is True, or the current record has been deleted. Requested operation requires a current record.

/region-story.asp, line 131

-----

There's also this story from the Boulder Weekly:

http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/082803/coverstory.html

Which DOES work:

Not in my backyard Is a proposed town a spirited cry for self-determination or a greedy land-grab? by Joel Warner (Editorial@boulderweekly.com)

There’s a revolutionary war brewing just east of Longmont. It has all the right trappings for a battle for independence, with revolutionary rhetoric filling the air: "No taxation without representation!" "Self-determination and property rights!" and "Freedom from oppression!" Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to tell which people are the tyrants and which are the revolutionaries.

In response to the specter of a massive church campus moving in next door, a group of homeowners in unincorporated Weld County want to start their own town, called Freedom. They say Freedom is their only hope of countering unchecked development and unresponsive county government, while supporters of the church project say the move is a foolhardy pipe dream destined for financial ruin and a pointless attack on what will be a responsible and beneficial development. To make matters more complicated, businesses owners that would be located in Freedom say they want out, arguing that they don’t want to subsidize a personal vendetta.

The battle lines are drawn. The corps are closing ranks. The battle for Freedom has begun.

In the beginning

The First Christian Church of Longmont has come a long way since its founding in 1889, when it met in members’ homes and above stores in downtown Longmont. Today the First Christian Church–renamed LifeBridge Christian Church in 1999–resides in a 100,000-square-foot facility on Ute Highway just outside of Longmont.

The large, modern building looks every bit like an office complex, save for the cross rising above its main entrance. Inside there are classrooms, a conference hall, office space, an athletic gym and an auditorium seating about 800 people used for services. And it’s all too small.

In 1991, there were 570 members in the church. Today, weekend services can pull in a total of 2,800 people. When there are too many people in attendance, chairs are set up in the building’s lobby, where the overflow audience watches telecasts of the service.

In many ways LifeBridge mirrors the growing national trend of "megachurches." According to the U.S. Census, money spent on new church construction grew 64 percent between 1994 and 1998. As people move to new areas, they are looking for readymade communities to plug into, and large-scale churches are filling the need.

LifeBridge is certainly primed to fill this need in fast-growing Longmont. In fact, it’s part of the church’s mission.

"We really want the focus to be a facility that meets the needs of the community," says Krista Petty, director of communication arts for LifeBridge. "It’s more of a soft evangelism. We want Christians from the church to meet members of the community and rub shoulders with people who might have needs we can meet."

Instead of standing on the street corner thumping the Bible, LifeBridge brings the community to its facility, offering spaces for school groups, counseling services, athletic activities, even commercial seminars, among other things. Along the way, LifeBridge hopes some community members will end up attending services.

The strategy has worked wonders, and now the church is ready to move to an even larger facility, where their goal of meeting the needs of their community could be significantly expanded. To do so, they purchased 313 acres just north of Colo. Highway 119 about five miles east of Longmont.

Over the next 50 years or so, LifeBridge plans to build a multi-faceted development on the property, including a senior community, a single-family residential subdivision and a million-and-a-half-square-foot church campus with a worship center, recreational facilities, a community college and multiple indoor and outdoor auditoriums seating thousands.

For Bruce Grinnell, LifeBridge administrator and director of campus planning and design, this is the best way to be good stewards with what God has provided for them.

"I don’t think it’s our vision. I think it was given to us. There’s plenty of reasons this should not have been successful so far," says Grinnell. "In certain respects, I say it’s rather providential."

Not everyone agrees with him.

Crony capitalism

The Meadow Vale Farm and the Elms at Meadow Vale subdivisions stand on what was formerly farmland, part of it owned by the same family since 1926. The fields of corn, sugar beets, barley and alfalfa have been replaced by about 350 newly constructed middle- and upper-class homes. To the south runs Highway 119. To the north lies land primed for additional subdivisions. To the east, down the road, lies Interstate 25. To the west lies a perfect view of the Front Range, Longs Peak and all. It’s a view that could soon be drastically changed.

When residents like Peter Gries moved into the homes along the west edge of the subdivisions, they were told a church would be going in next door. Gries imagined the typical garden-variety house of worship, nothing to be worried about. Now he says he couldn’t have been further from the truth.

"This isn’t just a church," says Gries. "What (Weld County has) agreed to do is have a 20,000-person tax-free city go into this area."

Grinnell says that a church fits well on the land, which was originally zoned residential. Gries and his neighbor Duane Leise note the 75-foot-tall auditorium, 4,800-space parking lot and space for at least 15,000 church members planned for the LifeBridge development, saying it will be more like having Denver International Airport or FlatIrons Crossing Mall right next door.

Residents are particularly concerned about the impact on local traffic. They point to two different traffic studies that suggest the development could generate up to 28,000 car trips a day in the area. Some of that traffic would end up on Pearl Howlett Road running through the subdivisions, if LifeBridge’s plan on connecting these thoroughfares with their parking lot goes through. Quiet streets that are now filled with playing children will then be clogged with cars, say residents.

An assessor hired by LifeBridge opponents estimated that the traffic and development could slice 10 to 15 percent off the residents’ property values.

LifeBridge supporters say a certain degree of shellshock to such a unique development is understandable, but say that LifeBridge has gone to great lengths to address the neighbors’ concerns, cutting building heights and expanding setbacks. They also say compared to what else the land could be used for, LifeBridge will be a pretty good neighbor.

"I’ve supported what LifeBridge was trying to do from the very beginning, because it would be like a campus atmosphere," says Floyd Butler, who developed the two subdivisions and whose wife is a member of LifeBridge. "It’s better in my opinion than houses that are stacked one on top of another. High-density residential construction would be the most likely thing to go in there."

For LifeBridge members like Grinnell, it seems like nothing the church can do will satisfy the neighbors.

"We made a tremendous number of allowances, and there are clearly people who are unwilling to accept anything we do out there," he says.

Gries and his supporters say they have nothing personal against LifeBridge, nor are they anti-Christian, as some detractors have suggested. They say that the development will completely change the character of their neighborhood and violate their property rights.

What’s worse, Gries says that local representatives have purposefully ignored their concerns, thanks to what he calls "crony capitalism."

Glen Vaad, the Weld County commissioner representing the subdivisions, is also a LifeBridge Church elder. Because of the conflict of interest, Vaad did not vote on rezoning the land for the LifeBridge development, but Gries says this left residents with no representation. Gries also says Vaad spoke out publicly in support of LifeBridge, which could have swayed the other commissioners. For Gries, it was no surprise Weld County gave LifeBridge the go-ahead. And that’s not even considering the fact that Butler, the developer of the Meadow Vale subdivisions, has close ties to LifeBridge.

"It’s like it’s been planned," says Leise. "If this was IBM, or Sun, or Hewlitt-Packard, and one of its board of directors was a county commissioner, and this was going in, there would be a huge outcry,"

The situation has left some of the subdivision residents feeling like they have no rights.

"People invested their whole life savings (into their homes), counting on the law to protect their investment," says Gries. "Now we hear that the county code does not protect the investors."

Saved by McDonalds

Leise likes to recite a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

Leise says he and his neighbors are the lambs, and they are ready to arm themselves–by forming the town of Freedom.

Incorporation is an unusual response to property conflicts. But Gries and Leise, who are spearheading Freedom, say they are in an unusual situation, stuck between a monolithic development and an unresponsive local government.

If Freedom is incorporated as planned, thanks to a 50 percent vote of local residents plus one, it will include 1.7 miles of land, 423 households and 1,183 people, including the two subdivisions at Meadow Vale, additional residential developments and the roads surrounding LifeBridge. Services like water, sewage and fire will be contracted from Weld County, and police could be contracted from a nearby municipality. Freedom would likely have a mayor, six trustees, and a part-time clerk/treasurer and an administrator/planner.

While Grinnel says the idea of Freedom was created only to control LifeBridge’s property rights, Gries points out that the neighbors know that incorporation will not affect LifeBridge’s development. Instead, Freedom will give its residents freedom to control what happens to their land and their roads. No one will be able to expand the roads in the subdivisions or connect them to LifeBridge without the residents’ approval. No one will be able to build inappropriate developments in Freedom thanks to questionable connections between developers and a county government 45 minutes away in Greeley.

"We get some control over our destiny," says Gries. "We get to make the decisions on zoning. We get to keep paying low taxes."

The benefit of paying low taxes is another reason Freedom is a no-brainer, say its supporters. The area in question is likely going to be annexed sooner or later by one of the surrounding communities, such as Longmont, Mead, Firestone or Frederick, says Gries. Then residents in the area will have to pay sizable property and sales taxes. But Freedom’s founders say their proposed town’s services will be covered in full without having to charge residents property taxes or sales taxes on big-ticket items like cars, furniture, large appliances or capitol equipment for the next 10 years.

How could this financial magic trick be possible? It’s all thanks to a handful of fast-food joints and motels down the road.

Taxation without representation

Del Camino is the unofficial name for the congregation of gas stations, chain restaurants and other businesses at the intersection of I-25 and Highway 119. The name probably came from the truck stop that was in the area after I-25 was built 38 years ago. Today big-wheelers usually outnumber sedans in Del Camino, and billboards advertising cheap gas and 12-packs of coke rise high in the air over I-25 like steeples.

For aspirant residents of Freedom, this homely pit stop is a beautiful cash cow.

By running their proposed boundaries down along Highway 119, the Freedom founders could include the unincorporated Del Camino in their town. And by charging a 1.85 percent sales tax on most items in Del Camino, Freedom would be able to subsidize its operations without having to resort to property taxes or big-ticket item sales taxes. If it charges a slightly larger sales tax, Freedom could end up with a hefty annual surplus.

Unfortunately, not everyone in Del Camino is fond of the idea.

"Essentially they want us to collect tax for their own little idea. Does that sound right to you?" says Ron Fahrenholtz, co-owner of CJ’s Liquors in Del Camino.

And, thanks to Colorado law, since Fahrenholtz and many of his fellow Del Camino business people don’t live in the area, they are powerless to stop the formation of the town.

"We don’t even get a chance to vote," says Fahrenholtz. "They very carefully laid this out so that they can do anything they wanted to do. That’s taxation without representation in my book. We feel it was a very underhanded, sneaky approach that these people put on us."

Will a few more cents of taxes really make a difference to Del Camino? Business owners say yes.

"I have about 50 percent of my customers saying (the lower tax is) why they come here," says Brenda Phillps, Fahrenholtz’s partner. "(Gries) is flat lying to people if he says it won’t be affecting them. He’s manipulative, he’s secretive, he’s conniving. He should build his own liquor store, gas station and Arby’s and leave us the hell alone."

Some Del Camino business owners aren’t so sure they are really on the verge of being annexed by a surrounding community, like Freedom’s proponents threaten, since unincorporated areas usually need to apply to be annexed. Even if they are going to be annexed, many business owners say they would prefer to be part of a municipality that already has long-standing services in place.

Business owners aren’t the only ones grumbling about Freedom in Del Camino. River Valley Village is a 210-home mobile park in the area that will also be part of the new town. And its residents say they were never told about it.

"I think mostly everybody in the community feels insulted about it," says Joseph A. Markert, a River Valley resident. "We are about 50 percent of the people in that area. But they don’t give a shit about us. I don’t think its going to get the community anything, especially this community. Taxes won’t go up, this and that won’t go up. That’s a bunch of crock. It always does."

With or without Del Camino, some Freedom critics say the lofty experiment is bound to fail. Creating a town in response to a church? No property taxes? It can’t be done, they say. They point to Centennial, which was started barely two years ago and is now heavily in debt.

Anti-religion. Class warfare. Underhanded dealings. Financial ruin. Even before it comes into existence, the town of Freedom is facing some hefty municipal challenges.

Heavy-handed opposition

Gries and Leise say Freedom is not going to be bad for anybody involved. They say the concerns of those in Del Camino and elsewhere have sprung up thanks to miscommunication, stereotypes and a negative PR campaign by their opposition.

Part of the problem is their own fault, say the Freedom founders, for not talking to Del Camino business owners and residents before proposing the town.

"I think we should have, in an ideal world, talked to more people earlier," says Gries. "But we wanted to get the ball rolling before LifeBridge stopped the ball completely. People who were upset that we didn’t have time to talk to them earlier, they have a legitimate complaint."

A systematic misinformation campaign on the part of LifeBridge supporters only made the problem worse, say Freedom proponents.

"People are very heavy-handedly showing their opposition," says Leise.

Gries and Leise say informative signs about Freedom around the subdivisions have been torn down. They say when an alternative paper was distributed around the area with a story about Freedom, half the papers were confiscated by their opposition. Residents who signed Freedom’s incorporation petition were threatened with lawsuits.

And then there are the negative stereotypes that most people, especially those in business, already have: Government is bad and will undoubtedly lead to more taxes. What Gries, Leise and their compatriots have to do is convince people that in this case, government can actually be good. No, they won’t be adding a layer of government, they say–they will be replacing a distant, unresponsive government with a local government they can actually hold accountable.

"The truth is, we are all in the same position as individual investors that are going to get a raw deal if we don’t organize collectively," says Gries. "We feel that these business in Del Camino are getting the best deal out of everyone."

Even if annexation is not necessarily right around the corner for Del Camino, Freedom proponents say they are offering the area a 10-year insurance policy, with no property taxes and no big ticket sales taxes, just to be safe. If the area is annexed by another municipality, Freedom’s founders say local residents and business owners will be paying 9 to 17 percent more in property taxes and 69 to 102 percent more in sales taxes than they would if they were part of Freedom.

Freedom supporters also point to a fiscal feasibility analysis they commissioned for the proposed town by Thomas Pippin of BBC Research and Consulting–who predicted Centennial would have financial troubles–which suggested Freedom would be fiscally feasible.

Freedom faces a few bumps down the road before it reaches an incorporation vote. LifeBridge is challenging part of Freedom’s boundaries around the church land, and Freedom’s founders unknowingly included land in their proposal that was already under consideration for annexation by Longmont. Furthermore, 31 people who signed Freedom’s incorporation petition are trying to take their names off the petition, which could mean Freedom has less than the 150 signatures needed for an incorporation vote. But Gries and Leise remain optimistic, saying these issues will all be worked out (maybe through a redrawing of Freedom’s boundaries and a new signature drive), everyone with a stake in Freedom will learn the truth about the town and that the proposal should come to a vote in late October or November.

"If we have an election, and people decide they don’t want a town, I will be happy," says Gries. "I just want people to have the opportunity to get the information, make a decision and vote."

Nothing is free–or is it?

Down a side road in Del Camino, a large sign has been erected. In large bold letters, the sign warns, "Town of Freedom will cost you!"

LifeBridge supporters and Freedom opponents might say this sign is meant as a warning to those who are uninformed, telling them not to be mislead by lofty claims of self-determination and property rights. They might say the sign refers to the closed-minded, possibly anti-religious stance of a handful of local residents, who are willing to lead everyone in the area to sure financial ruin just to spite a religious organization that is trying to build a far-sighted community center. Freedom, these people might say, is anything but free.

But Freedom supporters might look at the sign differently. They might say it is the brutal threat of a mega-corporation and a county government with its fingers in the honey jar. They might say the sign suggests, "Don’t rattle your cage–or else." Freedom, these people might say, is the only chance the area has to really be free.

So which interpretation is correct? It’s hard to know for sure. All one can hope is that when the battle is over, and the dust clears, true freedom prevails.

Unholy Union

2007-03-27T22:43:00.000-07:00

Infomation from Council - plans of development

Google Earth Placemark for development

Here’s an overview showing where it is and how big it is. It’s easily as large as one of the old neighborhoods in Longmont - ie HUGE.

Union

03/14/07

Union Annexation, Concept Plan, Zoning (File # 3444)
LACP Amendment (File #1042-29)
Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Preliminary PUD Development Plan with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations and a Height Exception (File #3444-1, 3444-1a)
Union PUD Filing 1 (Pro Action Event Center) Preliminary Development Plan (File #3444-2a)

Planning and Zoning Commission agenda item on March 21, 2007

Location

Generally located north of State Highway 119, east of Weld County Road 3 1/2, south of Weld County Road 26 and west of Meadow Vale Farms and the Elms at Meadow Vale.

Proposals

A request for annexation of 340 acres with a proposed zoning of Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use (PUD-MU) with a concept plan that designates 94 acres for 175 single family dwelling units, 20 acres for 67 single family attached homes, 28 acres for 75 dwelling units for mixed use residential, 57 acres for civic and religious uses, 40 acres for mixed use, 43 acres for open space and setbacks;
An amendment to the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan to include the property into the Longmont Planning Area (LPA); designate WCR 26 (East 9th Avenue) as an arterial; designate WCR 3 1/2 as an arterial; designate WCR 5 as an arterial; designate the Great Western Railroad as a Primary Greenway, designate State Highway 119 as a Scenic Entryway, designate the property south of the Great Western Railroad Primary Greenway as a mixed use commercial corridor, and designate the area north of the Great Western Railroad Primary Greenway as low density residential;
A preliminary plat and preliminary PUD development plan for the entire 313 acre Union development. The application proposes 175 single family dwelling units on 93.7 acres; 67 single family and attached residential dwelling units on 20 acres; 75 mixed use residential dwelling units (to include single family homes, attached homes, town homes and apartments) on 28.1 acres; 57.4 acres for future Civic and Religious Uses; 39.6 acres for future Mixed Use (to include commercial on the ground floor and commercial, residential and religious uses on second and third floors); 43 acres of open space; and 31.3 acres of right-of-way. The preliminary plat requires the following exceptions to the City of Longmont Land Development Code:
- lots without street frontage
- height exceptions
A preliminary PUD development plan for the ProAction Event Center on Block 5a and 6a totaling 150,950 square feet.

Application Description

The applicants have proposed annexation of 340 acres with a proposed zoning of Planned Unit Development – Mixed Use (PUD-MU) with a concept plan that designates 94 acres for 175 single family dwelling units, 20 acres for 67 single family attached homes, 28 acres for 75 dwelling units for mixed use residential, 57 acres for civic and religious uses, 40 acres for mixed use, 43 acres for open space and setbacks;

The application also includes an amendment to the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan to Designate WCR 26 (East 9th Avenue) as an arterial; designate WCR 3 1/2 as an arterial; designate WCR 5 as an arterial; designate the Great Western Railroad as a Primary Greenway, designate State Highway 119 as a Scenic Entryway, designate the property south of the Great Western Railroad Primary Greenway as a mixed use commercial corridor, and designate the area north of the Great Western Railroad Primary Greenway as low density residential;

Concurrently being reviewed is a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD development plan for the entire 313 acre Union development. The application proposes 175 single family dwelling units on 93.7 acres; 67 single family and attached residential dwelling units on 20 acres; 75 mixed use residential dwelling units (to include single family homes, attached homes, town homes and apartments) on 28.1 acres; 57.4 acres for future Civic and Religious Uses; 39.6 acres for future Mixed Use (to include commercial on the ground floor and commercial, residential and religious uses on second and third floors); 43 acres of open space; and 31.3 acres of right-of-way.

The preliminary plat and PUD development plan would require the following exceptions to the City of Longmont Land Development Code:

Allow 13 lots without street frontage (3 commercial lots and 10 residential lots) in the Mixed Use area of the PUD.
Grant 3 height exceptions in the following areas

	Height Requested	City of Longmont Height Limits	Variance Requested
Civic/Religious Campus	60 feet	45 feet	15 feet
Civic/Religious Architectural Features (maximum 20% of a building)	75 feet	45 feet	30 feet
North Residential Area	35 feet	30 feet	5 feet

The final application being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission is a preliminary PUD development plan for the ProAction Event Center. The proposed center is located on Blocks 5a and 6a of the preliminary plat and the structure would total 150,950 square feet. The center would allow for sporting events and other large gatherings to occur and the Life Bridge Christian Church plans to use a portion of the building for there temporary home after the sale of their property on State Highway 66 until a new church could be built on the Union parcel in the Civic/Religious area.

For further information - please contact:

Project Planner Don Burchett

303-651-8330 / email: don.burchett@ci.longmont.co.us