When Loveland’s alarm clocks ring on November 8th all the work that the candidates and residents have put into this election will be done but the work for our city will just be beginning. Loveland has eight candidates vying to represent us, choosing the right ones is imperative so we don’t go back to where we have been. We have weathered fights over our Loveland Farmers Market, fees charged to vendors working in our city, a recall petition times two of our former mayor, and much infighting amongst the remaining members of council.
My votes go to Neal Oury, Tim Butler, Ted Phelps and Rob Weisgerber. Transparency, resident engagement, and ethical behavior is a promise from all four and that is imperative for me.
Rob Weisgerber represents continuity and history to me. Rob has been on council through good times in Loveland and bad and he is the first to admit that decisions made with the greatest intentions sometimes backfire in the long run. His humility and willingness to devote so much to our city along with continuity and history pull a vote from me for Rob.
Neal Oury represents new ideas but with a great background in Loveland and in management that will be a huge asset to Loveland. Neal has proven his character by his decision to be open with personal hardships he has endured and his neighborly attitude of helping Mark Bersani of Loveland Canoe when their building flooded in March and Neal was right there to lend a hand.
Tim Butler is an innovator who created the SMAC track and cross country program that has served thousands of girls and boys in the Loveland Area. He is someone who has a fresh approach to city council but is a practicing attorney so following rules and regulations is second nature to him. We need someone on council who brings fresh eyes to Loveland but with a backbone to stand up for what our city needs and deserves and Tim brings that in my opinion.
Ted Phelps is another existing councilmember, with less time in the seat than Rob, but still brings some consistency of working with members of City staff and residents. Ted is always attentive during council meetings to whoever is speaking, as an attorney he knows that shows respect. My vote for Ted is due to his always friendly and open to opinions even those he doesn’t agree with but he is extremely respectful and throughful in his interactions.
These four gentlemen will bring a fantastic combination of history with new opinions, attentiveness and respectfulness with a strong backbone to push back when needed, lifelong residents of Loveland and those who have absorbed ideas from other cities, knowledge about rules and regulations in many areas but most important a desire to represent and engage with each other and the residents of our town.
Join me in voting for Neal Oury, Ted Phelps, Tim Butler and Rob Weisgerber on November 7th.
Once again the citizens of Loveland were denied, by three council members, the right to undertake the business of the city. This is the second meeting of 2017 where, from my perspective, the same three council members failed their oath to the citizens of Loveland. Loveland Charter outlines that two council meetings are required to occur, on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.
In researching the absences of councilmembers during the last four years, there has never been a time where three council members were missing for a monthly meeting.
There were only 3 times that 2 council members were out for a required charter council meeting
I also looked at what percentage of meetings councilmembers missed during their time on council (this specific calculation is the only way to determine what affect their absences has had on council) because a straight numbers calculation over different periods is not meaningful.
Two council members have missed almost 17% of the required charter meetings, only one is currently on council – Steve Zamagias
One council member has NEVER missed a required charter council meeting – Kathy Bailey
Another council member has only missed one meeting in the last four years, the one where that absence caused a lack of quorum- Vice Mayor Angie Settell
Rob Weisgerber has missed 10% of meetings, Ted Phelps has missed 7.78% while Pam Gross has only missed 5.56% of required charter council meeting during the previous four years.
Based on this review I can am left to believe that only Politics played into the absence of three council members for one required by charter council meeting. Loveland fails when the business of the city is disrupted by officials who sign a pledge to follow the Charter of our city and then fail to live up to that pledge.
Shanda Gentry is a twenty-year resident of Loveland
Only one conclusion can be reached – that their absence was intentional
by Rob Weisgerber
I recently attended the September 26th city council meeting with council members Ted Phelps and Kathy Bailey. This was a scheduled meeting and had been on the calendar, as per the charter. Unfortunately, the meeting never took place due to a lack of quorum when the other three members of council did not show up. (City council no-shows: “Alignment of planets” or “Act of political cowardice?”)
To cancel a meeting requires a vote of the council – there is no unilateral authority by any one member to cancel or reschedule a planned meeting.
Most importantly, I did not find a case where there was a lack of quorum to do the business of the City.
If and when an individual member of council cannot make a meeting, it has not been an issue. However, In my history on council I can’t remember a time when 3 members had last-minute plans come up which caused a lack of quorum, halting a regularly scheduled meeting.
Council members do sometimes have to miss meetings. Almost always council votes to excuse him or her. The fact that people miss meetings is not disputable or even in question in my opinion. As a matter of openness, I have missed roughly 18 meetings over 7 years (that is about 165 meetings). This is about an average of 2 to 3 meetings per year. With legitimate reason or cause, being excused is appropriate for any member of council.
I could not remember in my history on council when we have had 3 members of council miss the same meeting or, even worse, not having a quorum to conduct city business. Nor could I find any request to move a meeting because a couple of members could not make the meeting. This is the real issue. Looking back through the last 8 years of records, I could find about 4 or 5 meetings where 2 members missed the same meeting. No meetings in that time had 3 members missing a meeting. Most importantly, I did not find a case where there was a lack of quorum to do the business of the City.
Several times while on our family vacation, as happened this year in August, I flew home at my own expense to make the scheduled meeting.
The first I had received any information from Vice-Mayor Angie Settell was through the city solicitor, about 60 hours following our last regular meeting. The email stated that there may be a problem and she wanted a special meeting the following week. This discussion should have taken place at the council meeting just 2 and 1/2 days prior. My schedule is very busy and full and I could not accommodate her request. Council members Bailey, Ted Phelps, and I did propose other dates but I received no feedback regarding our offer. I did make it clear that priority has to be given to the scheduled meetings as we all know they are coming and can plan. If I make plans that I can control I schedule them for non-council weeks. Several times while on our family vacation, as happened this year in August, I flew home at my own expense to make the scheduled meeting. There are times outside of my control when I can’t make a meeting due to work commitments.
I did not receive Ms. Settell’s email claiming to be a press release. I also noticed a real issue with the date of the notice being September 19th as meeting alternatives were offered following that date.
In the last several months we have now had Pam Gross, Steven Zamagias, Settell, and former mayor Mark Fitzgerald vote to schedule a meeting where Bailey, Phelps, and I could not attend, a walk out meeting where Gross, Zamagias, Settell, and Fitzgerald created a lack of quorum to do the business of the city by abruptly ending it and walking out. Now we have the same members not showing up so no meeting can occur. Only one conclusion can be reached – that their absence was intentional – again.
While I have missed meetings before, not once did any absence of mine preclude the business of the city getting accomplished. I take my commitment to you and the city seriously.
Rob Weisgerber is a member of Loveland City Council
Solicitor responds to request by Tim Canada to subpoena former city manager Tom Carroll
Loveland, Ohio – On Tuesday, August 22, local business owner Tim Canada gave a speech at the Loveland Council meeting and said that former City Manager Tom Carroll spent $15,000 in 2013 when he hired a lobbyist group called the Colwell Group. Canada said that a total of $25,000 was paid to the Colwell Group throughout 2013, but he could not find any authorization from Council He suggested Council issue a subpoena to Carroll to investigate the $25,000 expenditure. He was essentially asking the question to Councilman Rob Weisgerber who was on Council at the time and is seeking re-election. Weisgerber said that he would respond to Canada at a later time.
Later in the meeting, Councilmember Pam Gross did respond to the allegations made by Canada. She also said that the contract with the Colwell Group was illegal, and was the same argument Council Members had for Rob Stansel’s contract. Stansel was the former economic director that had recently been let go because his contract exceeded the spending authority of current City Manager Dave Kennedy. Gross said she appreciated the fact that Mr. Weisgerber wanted to move forward, however she felt it was important to note that the Colwell Group contract was the same as Stansel’s contract and questioned why Stansel’s contract caused such an uproar, but Weisgerber wanted to gloss over the Colwell Group contract.
At the Tuesday, September 12 meeting, Weisgerber responded. He said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts with the Colwell Group, nor were there any City procedures or spending authority violated. He noted that in the 1990’s, Loveland had a city manager that did break up contracts to get around the spending limit and at that time, Council changed the rules to be very specific about the spending limit and how to break up contracts into separate issues/engagements, which are the rules today. He explained that the Colwell Group was used for three separate engagements, had separate contracts, and separate rates for specific issues. He reiterated that nothing illegal was done, no rules were violated, and the City Manager acted within his authority. He turned to Joe Braun the City Solicitor and asked him to confirm what he was saying.
Braun said that he reached out to Canada when he said the City had acted illegally and asked for a subpoena to be issued to the former city manager. He said that he also researched the Colwell Group contracts and asked the clerk of council to pull documents for him so he could check the facts. Braun stated that he came to the same conclusion that Weisgerber did, there was nothing illegal done, there were three separate contracts with the Colwell Group for three separate amounts, three different hourly rates, three different time periods, and three different objectives. He reiterated that there was nothing illegal done and no rules were violated.
In these three LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV videos you can watch Councilwoman Pam Gross and Tim Canada raising the issue of the Colwell Group contract and Weisgerber and Braun saying there was nothing illegal about how Carroll handled them.
RP Diamond is the exclusive retailer of LOVELAND HIGH SCHOOL SPIRIT WEAR Welcome to RP Diamond Printing & Embroidery located at 370 Loveland Madeira Road.
Loveland Sweets is a purveyor of hand-crafted chocolates, caramels, marshmallows, and ice creams. Our house-made candies are prepared in small batches.
Loveland Sweets is a purveyor of hand-crafted chocolates, caramels, marshmallows, and ice creams. Our house-made candies are prepared in small batches.
Halie Rebeccaschild is the Secretary of the Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC
First, In his argument that certain sitting City Council members are “anti-business,” Kulik stated, “Legally required public hearings were voted down by this Council to stop positive business growth.” It appears that Mr. Kulik has over simplified the matter, as Council has stopped a public hearing from proceeding only in one case this year, that of the city hall project. The city never moved to a public hearing because residents expressed outrage at multiple City Council meetings in May and June of this year over the planned demolition of Loveland City Hall. In fact, On May 9th, City Council deadlocked on the nature of public engagement. After Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) President Jay Stewart recommended involving residents and holding a work session with Ken Geis, Vice Mayor Angie Settell immediately motioned for a public hearing (1). Such a move would have then fulfilled the legal requirement for a single hearing prior to transferring the city hall property to the autonomous CIC, ensuring demolition of our city hall building in July, as planned.
Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice Mayor Angie Settell, and Pam Gross voted no on these public engagement forums.
Residents had expressed great concern about the city hall project moving too quickly, which may be seen in both April and May City Council meeting minutes. Rob Weisgerber, Kathy Bailey, and Ted Phelps responded to residents by opposing the vote to immediately move to fulfill the single public hearing requirement. Then, Council Member Rob Weisgerber motioned for no less than three resident engagement sessions, which would have brought residents into the planning process on either a 2-story, 2.5 story, or 4-story building. Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice Mayor Angie Settell, and Pam Gross voted no on these public engagement forums, while Council Members Rob Weisgerber, Kathy Bailey, and Ted Phelps voted yes. The deadlocked votes reflect a difference in how much emphasis was placed on resident engagement.
Not a single resident has come to address Council to demand that the city hall demolition move forward, so who does Mr. Kulik represent?
Mr. Kulik spoke of the public hearing requirement completely out of context of the planned demolition of City Hall, and in such a way that suggested a law was somehow broken in slowing down the city hall project for residents to give necessary sanction. Indeed, if the public hearing had occurred as pushed by Mark Fitzgerald, Angie Settell, and Pam Gross, the transfer of our city hall to the CIC would have been final. Once in possession of the CIC, residents would have had no further input. This process would have prevented residents from thoroughly engaging in the planning for our new, city hall building in Old Loveland. Instead of anti-business, as Mr. Kulik suggests, Rob Weisgerber, Ted Phelps, and Kathy Bailey’s vote for multiple hearings reflect their duty as public servants to residents of Loveland. Residents have been relieved that the planned demolition and any repurposing of city hall will wait until after elections when residents will have their say with their votes. Not a single resident has come to address Council to demand that the city hall demolition move forward, so who does Mr. Kulik represent?
Next, Mr. Ryan Kulik went on to claim that City Council acted wrongly by cancelling Mr. Stansel’s contract. Kulik said, “What is it Mr. Stansel did wrong? I can see where council should have had the discussion on his services, but we never had that discussion. Rob Stansel was hired by the City Manager, not council. Stop lying. This is what the city manager does. The council should have had a chance to vote on his contract when the spending limit was exceeded. We never had this discussion.”
Yet again, Mr. Kulik is mistaken.
Yet again, Mr. Kulik is mistaken. City Council did have a discussion about cancelling Rob Stansel’s contract just prior to their vote that terminated it on May 9th. Mr. Kulik asks, “What was illegal about the contract? Was it because the spending limit was exceeded? Okay, I understand that.” If Mr. Kulik understands that City Council voted after a discussion to cancel the contract because it violated the City Manager’s spending authority, then what’s his agenda? Why would he want Council to violate our city charter?
Then, Mr. Kulik goes on to say, “[Stansel] secured over $600,000 for, I believe, the Chestnut property.” Not exactly. The “letter of intent” brought by Mr. Stansel to the city died upon expiration on May 5th, 2017, four days prior to City Council voting to terminate Stansel’s contract on May 9th (2,3). Perhaps Mr. Kulik should speak with City Manager Dave Kennedy about why the offer wasn’t pursued. Because at this point, it appears that Mr. Kulik is speaking beyond his knowledge and expertise.
it appears that Mr. Kulik is speaking beyond his knowledge and expertise.
Last, Kulik goes on to say, “[Rob Stansel] was working on the Christman property that we’ve heard a lot about.” Yet, again, Mr. Kulik references a development project that brought Loveland residents out in droves against it. Residents from the Brandywine and Butterworth Glen neighborhoods overflowed Loveland City Hall at the public hearing on June 13th when City Council was expected to vote on an ordinance to transfer city land to the Community Improvement Corporation that would have then been sold to Drees Co. and ultimately culminated in a Drees Homes development of 10 acres nearby. Apparently, the residents of those neighborhoods believed the city years ago when it claimed to have bought the Christman property to be a park, and they weren’t too excited about the pending development deal. That’s why the city did not transfer the land to the Community Improvement Corporation, and the private deal between the developer and the commercial real estate firm dissolved.
Upon scrutiny, Ryan Kulik’s arguments fail due to his oversimplification and outright error. In any regard, I appreciate him bringing up three very important topics to Loveland residents, and hope everyone registers to vote by October 10th and comes out to vote this November 7th.
Halie Rebeccaschild is the Secretary of the Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC.
Kulik compares a political pro, like himself to politically motivated flame throwing amateurs.
Loveland, Ohio – Resident Ryan Kulik went to the September 12 council meeting and gave a speech about the state of Loveland politics. He said it has been “downright dreadful.”
Kulik said that no one wants to talk about the positive things brought by Rob Stansel, the City’s former economic development director who council voted to let go last May because the contract he had with the City exceeded the spending authority of City Manager Dave Kennedy. However, Kulik had plenty to say about Stansel in his speech and defended the work while employed by Kennedy. Some of the claims Kulik made were credible, some not.
Ryan Kulik
Kulik claimed Stansel secured over half a million dollars for the sale of property Loveland taxpayers own on Chestnut Street, however the letter of intent to buy the property was never signed and it expired.
Kulik warns of Loveland having an anti-business attitude and set his aim on The Little Miami River Chamber Alliance, the Loveland Heartbeat Political Action Committee, and Councilman Rob Weisgerber.
The day after Kulik gave his speech at the council meeting he sent the full text of his speech to Loveland Magazine with this message, “I have attached my full remarks to council, I did leave out huge chunks because 5 minutes is far too short for a blowhard like myself..” Below is that text with the following disclaimer from Kulik.
I am currently not working with anyone associated with the city council. I have talked with a few people who are running, but I have yet to sign a contract to exclusively work for anyone. Due to confidentiality agreements I can not reveal who I have spoken with. I did want you to know all of this so it is clear where I am coming from. As long as I am free from any contracts in the city, I would like to continue to get my opinions out in this volatile political climate. I will keep you updated if any of this changes.
Thank you, Council, and thank you fellow residents and friends of Loveland.
My name is Ryan Kulik and I live in Loveland. I manage a political consulting firm that specializes in local government. I worked, as in I got paid for my services, on my first campaign in 1992. We lost. Since that November in 1992, I have worked on numerous political issues, and worked on more campaigns than I wish to count. I do this because I love politics, I love America, and I love my community.
A Political Action Committee that has taken joy in stopping the discussion of positive economic growth in our city.
The narrative about Loveland, my community, in 2017 has been downright dreadful. A small group of political motivated amateurs have taken over and halted the business of the city, the mayor resigned, the council is split, and even more surprising, the local Chamber of Commerce has publicly endorsed, with money and with words, a Political Action Committee that has taken joy in stopping the discussion of positive economic growth in our city. Even members of this council have voted against legally required public hearings, read the charter, read the Ohio Constitution. These votes, along with the local chamber, and dedicated group of political motivated amateurs has made Loveland a town that is viewed as unfavorable to growth and not welcoming to new business.
That narrative is unacceptable. I have worked with numerous chambers of commerce, and to be aligned with a group that is anti-business is unthinkable. I have worked with a bunch of people who have run for local government. One of the biggest sins is to have a voting record that shows you are anti-growth and anti-business. I figure if we are going to let the political neophytes have control of our city, why not let a political professional have a crack at the bat. Maybe now we can start to correct the narrative of Loveland.
How is it I can paint these groups as anti-business you ask? Well, let me explain. The anti-business political group has recently brought up the cancelled contract of Mr. Rob Stansel. What is that Mr. Stansel did wrong? I can see where the council should have had a discussion on his services when the contract exceeded the City Manager’s spending limits, but council never had that discussion. Rob Stansel was hired by the City Manager, not council. That is what a city manager does. The council should have had a chance to vote on his contract when the City Manager’s spending limit was exceeded. We never had this discussion. A political amateur seems to always forget these things Again maybe they just don’t know. A political professional knows how a city runs.
As a tax paying resident of Loveland, I am happy that the City Manager hired Mr Stansel, and I am appalled that his services were let go in a blatant politically expedient move by a member of this council. Rob Stansel created, and was still creating, positive economic growth in Loveland. He secured over half a million dollars for the Chestnut property. He was working a deal for the infamous Christman property that would have brought another financial windfall to the city. Thank goodness, the City Manager hired Mr. Stansel. It is a shame that a politically motivated stunt by members of this council caused Loveland to lose someone who was bringing prosperity to our neighborhood. It is a big political sin to be anti-business and anti-growth.
Here’s some free advice, if you want to be a political flamethrower, be well versed in what libel and slander are.
No one wants to talk about the positive things brought by Rob Stansel, and other professionals to Loveland. The narrative has been infected with constant negativity. The refuge of the political amateur is to throw around the terms illegal and corruption. First off, be very careful when you throw those words around. The internet is written in ink, your words will live forever. Political pros, like myself, will look for any signs of behavior, or words, that are legally questionable. Here’s some free advice, if you want to be a political flamethrower, be well versed in what libel and slander are.
Second, what was illegal? The city manager hired Mr Stansel, Mr. Stansel created an incredible return on investment. In Councilman Wesigerber’s defense of the three contracts given to the lobbyists at the Colwell Group, that is right, there were three separate contracts. Managing my own politically consulting group for years I used to love to work with people like then Mayor Weisgerber. If he kept rewriting contracts for new work, I never had to deal with council votes and the public was never able to voice their concern. In my profession, it is easier to work with elected officials who like to dodge transparency.
But back to Councilman Weisgerber’s words. He claimed the three contracts secured by the Colwell group created a great return on investment. He is correct. Do you know what else is correct, the one contract with Rob Stansel created an even greater return on investment, and if this council had acknowledged this, Rob Stansel would still be working for the economic benefit of Loveland. Cancelling Rob Stansel’s contract without debate is an anti-business and anti-growth political sin, and every time someone wants to bring up the contract, I will remind people of this sin.
As for the word corruption. Again, be very careful. Words have consequences, and there is nothing but negativity with the word corruption. If you want to incite discord, then continue to use negativity. That seems to be the only plan of action from the political motivated anti-growth group. Just make sure you are in the clear, legally of course.
I was raised catholic, so I believe in the power of confession and the absolution of one’s sins. The political sin of being anti-business can be absolved, all you need to do is confess.
In 1992, I was a political amateur, I have spent the last twenty-five years learning. I am still learning. I encourage everyone who is new to Loveland politics, stay with it and keep learning. I lost my first race, but that did not deter me. Also, I was raised catholic, so I believe in the power of confession and the absolution of one’s sins. The political sin of being anti-business can be absolved, all you need to do is confess. Think about the future of Loveland. I am dedicated to returning to our pro-business and pro-growth policies. Our council, and community should share my goals. Join me.
Relaxed atmosphere and friendly service welcomes you back time and time again! Located in the heart of the Historic Loveland District Just outside Cincinnati, Ohio.
The assertion was false and heedlessly made without full knowledge of the facts.
I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight. The assertion made by a local business owner and council member that illegal payments were made to a contractor the City used throughout 2013 is false and was heedlessly made without full knowledge of the facts.
During the 8/22/17 Loveland City Council meeting, Mr. Tim Canada, of Bond Furniture, addressed city council about transparency in Loveland politics. (See video below) Mr. Canada asked questions about payments made to a contractor the City used throughout 2013. During this same address, he asked for a subpoena of the former city manager and Pam Gross asserted the referenced payments were illegal. In a subsequent email from Tim Canada, he also asserted the payments to the Colwell Group were illegal.
While Mr. Canada wanted an immediate response in the moment, given the inflammatory nature of the inquiry and Ms. Gross’s statement, I chose to hold my response so that I could research the matter in question and consult with the appropriate people to ensure my response was accurate. Knowing full well that I was risking more inflammatory accusations by not answering questions at that moment. I have no interest in participating in the kind of inflammatory and reckless rhetoric heard at the 8/22 council meeting.
There was absolutely nothing illegal regarding the contracts with the Colwell Group, nor were any city procedures or spending authority violated.
After proper review, including discussion with Loveland’s city solicitor and Mr. Colwell, I indeed have answers to Mr. Canada’s questions. I will start with this fundamental fact: There was absolutely nothing illegal regarding the contracts with the Colwell Group, nor were any city procedures or spending authority violated.
The Colwell Group is a professional organization providing help and solutions to political subdivisions in Ohio. The City of Loveland hired the Colwell group for three separate engagements covering lobbying to get state funding for performance measures, working with ODNR and the railroad on quiet zone needs, and working to secure a grant from ODNR for parking. All three agreements were properly reviewed by legal and the finance director, and all three efforts were at or under the legal spending authority of the city manager, per the city’s rules. Under the final contract, the Colwell Group secured between $300,000 and $350,000 in a grant from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) for the downtown parking area that is now the Linda Cox lot. That represented a 20X return for the taxpayers of Loveland.
Mr. Canada often references his extensive research, yet the facts of these contracts were readily accessible, had this information been his primary interest or objective.
Mr. Canada often references his extensive research, yet the facts of these contracts were readily accessible, had this information been his primary interest or objective. Whether at a meeting or in emails, calling for subpoenas and lobbing terms like “illegal” and “tarnished reputation” make for great drama in the moment, but when invoked without proof or cause, they are irresponsible and reckless. Mr. Canada is creating the very negativity he has lamented repeatedly from the podium.
With more than 20 years proudly serving the City of Loveland as a representative of city council, I cannot claim to have never made a mistake or a decision I regretted in hindsight. But I have always made decisions with the best interest of the city and its residents in mind, and to the best of my ability with the information available at the time. I intend to carry this same approach forward, with greater council collaboration, communication and resident involvement. Loveland residents deserve nothing less.
Rob Weisgerber is a Loveland Council member and running for re-election this November.
Here is video from LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV showing what was said by Tim Canada and Pam Gross during the August 22 City Council meeting:
We promise the best customer service, and beyond a doubt, the best selection of merchandise in the area Pizazz Studio is a whimsical gift shop in downtown Loveland.
In years past, I haven’t been thrilled with some things Mr. Weisgerber has done. But that’s the extent of my agreement with Mr. Kulik. In total, my experience of Mr. Weisgerber’s tenure on council has been positive. I wasn’t so happy about his part in the mess that eventually became the hulk at the corners of Loveland, Second, and Broadway, but it’s done and the city seems to be more or less the better for it. Certainly more business is being transacted. The basis for Mr. Kulik’s position that Mr. Weisgerber is anti-business is not clear to me.
During the years when Mr. Fitzgerald’s group managed things, we saw back-room dealing, attempts to subvert the rule of law, and forceful silencing of the public.
A few years ago, former mayor Mark Fitzgerald and his party arrived. Enough has been said about Mr. Fitzgerald, and the man has resigned. The three who ruled with him remain, deadlocking council. I hope November elections will end this farce and we can move on. During the years when Mr. Fitzgerald’s group managed things, we saw back-room dealing, attempts to subvert the rule of law, and forceful silencing of the public. During Mr. Fitzgerald’s tenure, Mr. Weisgerber stood against these activities. To my knowledge he was civil about this and followed the rules.
Mr. Weisgerber has been on council a long time. Frankly, with the complicated mess we have right now, some continuity is probably a good thing. I hope the past few years have given Mr. Weisgerber a clear picture of what not to do on council; I trust him to take that lesson.
Mr. Kulik’s vilification of Mr. Weisgerber does nothing useful. His mockery of the group that forced Mr. Fitzgerald out is groundless. The group’s ability to muster signatures representing a large portion of Loveland’s voters–twice–demonstrates their alignment with community sentiment.
My money is on Mr. Weisgerber and those who, I hope, will bring balance back to council.
We’ve had a rough few years here in Loveland. And now we’ve had that fire that challenges the established community businesses that have anchored the downtown for years. The last thing we need is an attempt to resuscitate things better left dead. My money is on Mr. Weisgerber and those who, I hope, will bring balance back to council. They have their flaws and baggage, no doubt, but we cannot do worse than what’s gone on here recently.
I hope also that people will watch council closely, at least for a while, and hold the new council to account. It’s council’s job to do what we want; they would do well to open up to public input and execute on the best of what they hear. Study of development in other small towns would also be a good idea. Downtown charm is in the balance. If we don’t want blocks of spanking new brick with a scant nod to quaintness, all built for the profit of out-of-towners, we need to figure out how to develop sensitively or stop downtown development.
Let’s have no more ugliness. It’s time to look at what needs to be done and get on with it.
by Shanda Gentry
