Dave Chandler

Something Rotten in the Arvada Mayor's Contest

"Something Rotten in the Arvada Mayor's Contest"

Read article and comments at www.MayorDaveBlog.us

Let's Stop Arvada's Road to Third Rate

Arvada is headed towards becoming a third rate city -- unless a change is made at the polls on November 1.

You see, the direction the incumbent city council has set us upon is one of growing population, but with fewer resources to support the municipal services, the roads and bridges that we have come to expect.

This must be clearly understood: the fundamental, underlying problem for Arvada is most assuredly not a lack of residents -- it is a debilitating lack of businesses. Since by far most of the city's revenue comes from sales taxes, there is simply not sufficient income to supply the revenue to meet basic municipals needs.

This is the future, but it is also the emerging reality now.

Here is a demonstration of our predicament. At a Monday, October 3, 2001 city council study session on the state of our streets, we learned from city staff that thirty percent of our roads are in 'poor' condition, in need of major repair. We heard that it would take a permanent $2 million increase in the street maintenance budget to begin getting the city streets in acceptable shape.

We don't have an extra $2 million every year.

Then there are these looming problems ...

The Arvada police station is too small; the department occupies the same space that it did 20 years ago when it serviced 20,000 fewer citizens -- it is in serious need of expansion. The cost for improvement, depending upon the plan chosen, ranges from perhaps $7 million (the substations idea) to over $30 million (enlarging the present facility or constructing an entirely new building).

We don't have $7 million, let alone $30 million.

Ralston Road and surrounding redevelopment is pegged at around $18 million.

We don't have $18 million.

Yet the incumbent city council envisions new development that is heavily geared towards even more and more houses full of people. The council dreams of "transit oriented development" at Gold Line train stations; of high-to-medium density housing in the Ralston-Triangle urban renewal area; and most outlandish of all, the tollway-Candelas development next to Rocky Flats that would add another 20,000 residents to Arvada!

As in the past the city council claims commercial zones as significant parts of these new developments -- invariably, however, the much easier-to-do home building slowly but surely increases and the business areas shrink. That has already happened in the tollway-Candelas development, just like it happened fifteen years ago in the Westwoods project.

We need a moratorium on the construction of new houses in Arvada -- until such time as the business tax base is sufficient to pay for basic city services. Failing that and failing to replace the incumbent city council will ultimately mean just one thing -- (mark my words) requests for tax increases and/or a grave decline in Arvada's infrastructure ... meaning a decline in the quality of life in this community.

I'll put this plainly, in the mayor's contest voting for the guy with the most signs, who claims the most "experience" -- experience that got Arvada into this impending mess -- would be like hitting the gas pedal on the road to third rate status for our city.

As Arvada's mayor I will advocate for a house building moratorium and for a revitalized effort to bring to and create more businesses in our city. Since I have not allowed myself to become beholden to residential developers and real estate agents through campaign contributions, I will be free to do what is best for all of Arvada.

 

Something Rotten in the Arvada Mayor's Contest

[Originally published at the 'MayorDaveBlog.us']

Something is wrong in the mayor's race in Arvada.

There has been published in the last two editions of the Arvada Press newspaper half-page ads advocating for the election of Marc Williams as mayor. These ads clearly state that they were: "Paid for by Ted Terranova, Aaark Total Home Services."

These ads display logo and text taken directly from Williams's web site and campaign literature. From my reading of the Colorado Constitution (Amendment 27; Section 5) the ads are not independent expenditures because "Expenditures by any person on behalf of a candidate for public office that are "coordinated with or controlled by the candidate or the candidate's agent ... shall be considered a contribution to the candidate's candidate committee."

It's a prima facie case: Mr. Terranova is a member of Williams campaign committee as announced on Williams's web site!

Our campaign committee is replete with involved Arvada residents, including campaign chair Frank Barone, campaign treasurer Bruce Nickerson, former Mayor and mentor Ken Fellman, Cheryl Van Hoose Barone, Christine Jensen, former councilmember and current Arvada Fire Protection District Board Member Ted Terranova,  Jed and Jeanee Ladd, Nathan Mudd,  my son Josh, and my ever supportive wife, Luanne.

Anyway, the Terranova paid-for-ads do not comply with the constitutional provision nor the Colorado Secretary of State's rules as an independent expenditure since they do not contain the notice that they are "not authorized by any candidate". 

Furthermore, Mr. Terranova has already contributed the maximum allowed by city law (City Code Chapter 30; Article I: Section 30-7) to Williams -- $750; and his company has also contributed the maximum allowed by city law -- $750.

Therefore, no matter what the cost of two half page newspaper ads (one in full color), it looks like Mr. Terranova may very well be in violation of the city's campaign contributions law.

The question all this begs is: why? 

With well over $30,000 raised by the Williams mayoral campaign, why are additional expenditures outside of the rules necessary? What is wrong with following not only the letter of the laws but the intent?

Let's be clear, the issue isn't whether or not one thinks that the contributions laws are right or just, the point is why does anyone act as if laws do not apply to them? Williams and Terranova have conducted several campaigns each, one is a lawyer, the other the treasurer of the Fire District, they cannot claim ignorance of the law ... only arrogance toward it.

Still perhaps we should not be surprised by these kinds of shennanigans; getting around the letter or intent of the contributions laws highlights a pattern we have seen in how the incumbent city council also skirts the intent of the term limits laws.

From almost all of the folks I have talked to in the past couple of months there is a consistent refrain of disgust and revulsion at the kind of "politics as usual" that this case exemplifies.

I am running for mayor of Arvada because I totally reject "politics as usual" -- I want to win, but I simply will not descend to their level of ‘win at all costs' if it means shredding personal integrity and the law.

Comments from the original post.

October 24, 2011

Ted Terranova said:

As ususal Dave sees a "boggyman" behind every action. For the record I paid for ads for the elctions the last three years and was not aware that there was any problem with doing so. This is still Amreica where a person can say want he wants, how he wants. That is what I did in the case of the ads purchased on behalf of Marc Williams. Having said that, IF there is some legal reason I could not do this then the solution would be for Marcs Campaighn committee to pay for the ads instead of me. Guess what! that is exactly what has occurred. So NOW in fact the ads were NOT paid by Ted Terranova, even though I would if it was clearly allowed. Since there is some question on that- It has been resolved. But as you would expect from someone like Dave Chandler- He thinks the worst of anyone that does not support him. There was no attempt to "cheat" but rather my way of letting the world know that Marc Williams is the ONLY legitimate candadate for Mayor of Arvada in this race. Sorry Dave.

***

October 24, 2011

Lyman Parkhurst said:

There is something scarier than a "bogeyman" behind Marc's campaign, it's Ted! Three comments; 1. Ted, this is America, you're free to disregard spelling, grammer, and syntax. You're even free to disregard the truth. 2. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense, nor is past violations without getting caught. Otherwise, you might as well say "I've driven drunk many times before without being arrested, so I thought it was legal". 3. We have election laws so the elected offices are not offered up to the highest bidder. We'd also like to have our elected officials follow the laws. Doesn't always happen, but it's a quaint notion of our civilized Western culture.

***

October 25, 2011

Dave Chandler said:

Marc: Thank you for your explanation. I will include it in 'Comments' on the blog post. Dave Chandler +++++++++++++++++++++ On Oct 24, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Marc Willliams wrote: Dave- your recent blog regarding ads in the Arvada Press has been brought to my attention. Perhaps if you had contacted me on this, it wouldn't be necessary to set the record straight. Our campaign did consider running ads, but chose not to do so. Ted Terranova made a decision that he wanted to run ads as an independent expenditure. As you know, such independent expenditures are permitted under Colorado's Constitution. Our campaign made the decision that because Mr. Terranova has been part of the campaign committee, and because the ads contain material from the campaign, that we would take the high road and treat the ads as an inkind contribution rather than as an independent expenditure, and as such, they exceeded the Arvada contribution limit. Accordingly, the campaign reimbursed Mr. Terranova for the cost of the ads as an excess contribution. The report on this matter was filed with the City Clerk, and will be included in my campaign report this week as well. Richard M. (Marc) Williams Helm, Less, Smith & Williams

***

October 25, 2011

Dave Chandler said:

In response to the two comments above from Mr. Terranova and Mr. Williams, it is clear from their explanations that they are trying to un-ring the bell of an incident that really speaks to the kind of "politics as usual" that I am standing against. Mr. Terranova even goes on the attack by attempting to whip-up some outrage at me … because I heard the bell in the first place. However, since Terranova and Williams concede the particulars that I explained in my original article, what remains is the question of what it means. What it means to me, and I suspect many others who might become aware of this episode, is that "politics as usual" manifests itself most clearly in the 'anything goes' attitude towards our election contests. Whatever money it takes, however low the discourse, whatever tactic is necessary -- because that is just how politics is done if you want to win; to think otherwise is naive. Most of all it is the perniciousness of too much money in politics. Imagine … really ... $30 to $40,000 to get elected mayor of Arvada. Something is out-of-whack here for a position whose responsibilities, other than its ceremonial duties, is the same as an at-large member of the city council. So, the Williams campaign has to bail-out Mr. Terranova, who doesn't seem to understand what being on a committee and accepting decisions is all about -- he strikes out on his own even if it means putting his own candidate in an "uncomfortable" situation. Politics as usual. Well, I haven't probably raised a tenth of what the Williams campaign has and I haven't take a single contribution from a company that might ever make a profit from a vote I would make on council as mayor. And that ……… is precisely why you should vote for me for mayor of Arvada. Dave Chandler Candidate for Mayor of Arvada

'No' on Proposition 103

I will vote 'no' on Proposition 103.

First of all, I always have problems with increases in the regressive sales tax. Especially in these stressful economic times, those on fixed and limited incomes simply cannot afford higher taxes.

But even more is this true when a portion of that tax hike will ultimately be used for the gain of private developers. I refer to a very insightful letter-to-the-editor that appeared in today's (October 4, 2011) Denver Post.

It doesn't makes sense to raise taxes to fund education, when a portion of that revenue can then be funnelled through the backdoor for non-educational corporate welfare. Clearly a broader and more comprehensive approach to Colorado's tax system and education funding needs to be undertaken to ensure that situations like those described in the letter cannot happen.

Proposition 103 is a bandage approach that doesn't solve our fundamental taxation, budget and government revenue problems.

---

State voters have no say on “backfill” of taxes
Denver Post, Wednesday, October 4, 2011

Re: “Taxes if Gaylord didn’t have deal: over $500 million; Project supporters say jobs and other revenue offset property-tax subsidies,” Sept. 25 news story.

Your article on all the tax subsidies going to the Gaylord project was detailed and well-written. However, it missed a really key point.

The article noted that the biggest “sacrifice” of tax money is by the Brighton 27J School District — $273 million. But the school district won’t really feel the pain from that loss, because it will get the money back from taxpayers across the state.

State law says pupils across the state must be funded at an equal level. To accomplish this, the state will have to “backfill” the forgone tax subsidy to the Brighton district. That $273 million will come directly out of the general fund — directly out of the pockets of taxpayers across the state who got no vote on this project. Talk about taxation without representation!

Developers have been subsidized in this manner across Colorado for decades. Backfilling school districts cost state taxpayers around $71 million in 2010. I would urge The Post to focus its next Gaylord article on this issue.

Stephanie Thomas, Denver
The writer is an advocate for the Colorado Environmental Coalition.