Like something stuck on your shoe, Bill Airy just won't go away. I thought I had fallen into a time-warp when I saw this:
Airy was paid $30,000 by the City for his poo bags last year and the "contract put on hold". Now it's like none of this happened, and we have started all over again.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
A Denver based engineering firm tested for contaminants in Lowry groundwater. The result: High levels of radiation everywhere over the site.
Another firm commissioned by the EPA and others, found levels of plutonium and associated isotopes 10,000 times higher than naturally occurring.
Conveniently, by about 1993, the EPA decided to put on a pair of verbal flip flops --- now , the plutonium laced waste was suitable for sewage sludge. It could be mixed, diluted or whatever with municipal wastewater. That was a much cheaper means of dealing with unacceptable levels of radioactivity.
Flopping its assessment meant that clean up dropped from billions of dollars to less than $100 million. Obviously, there are contentions that the EPA studies were “flawed” and that the cleanup board had mutants sitting amongst the environmentalists. Due to the “sludge” safety reports, the product was spread on farmlands from Virginia to Oregon.
The Christian Science Monitor reported that H.J. Heinz and Del Monte refused to buy tomatoes, beans, and other fruits and veggies fertilized with sludge.
SEWAGE TREATMENT
As for the ground water and other contaminants, the “stuff” from Lowry was dumped into Metro Wastewater . The EPA maintained that millions of gallons of Lowry (plutonium) laced toxic water could run through sewer pipes before high readings of hazardous materials would be detected.
One lab technician at the Denver Wastewater plan opted for early retirement when they began to accept Lowry waste. Marilyn Ferrari, the technician, told the Monitor, management had “pressured” technicians to “make readings look right… if numbers came in high, they would say, retest.”
As much as I laud the effort being made by Parks are for People, I don't think that any amount of calling and letter writing will change the fact that this Admission Based Policy is a done deal. Whenever they got a chance, the people spoke out against it, and it didn't matter. The HickenMaster has spoken and his Parks Czar Patterson has carried out the order, with the assistance of the Parks and Wreck minions.
It's going to take a lawsuit (injuction?) to stop this "experiment" in City Charter manipulation which was accomplished by redefining the words - lease, permit, concession, etc. by Friar Broadwell. And, if a successful effort is mounted to force it to a vote of the people, the Gentry (promoters) will fund a TV campaign to get it passed, as they usually do, with lemons, dancing letters and other advertising gimmicks. Those opposing its passage will be characterized as rigid old fuddy-duddys, resisting change, seeking serenity in their dotage, while those in favor will be the fun-loving, beer-drinking, rock and rollers, ready to partay!
While I agree that a dedicated Festival Park would be a great idea, it's not what HickenMaster has dictated, because it would cost too much money, and anyway, the parks are already, by his reckoning, available for the taking.
 |
 |
The "old Safeway" (16th and Josephine), as we old-timers knew it, or the "Church in the City" as those who came to the neighborhood in the last 16 years knew it, is now being demolished. The City agreed to pay a price $5,000,000 more than it had been appraised for the previous year, to build a Central Denver Recreation Center, dependent, of course, on future bond-financed borrowing.
Ooops, ain't gonna happen' now! Maybe in 5, 10, or 15 years, they say. Soooo... (bait and switch), how about a dog-park or a garden, or, better yet, how about both of those at the same time! Presumably separate, one hopes, but very, very expensive. Thank you Councilpersons Robb and Madison for bringing us the most expensive Central Denver Recreation Center Dog Park Gardens.
 |
| Limited to 7500 people once a week |
I recently was at a mayoral event. The mayor greeted me, and I said, "John, if you become governor, keep your hands off the 42 state parks. People are worried." Before he could answer, someone snagged him for a photo. But when he left the event, he came by to tell me: "I promise, if I become governor I won't put admission-based private events in the state parks."7 News report here. More on this site here. Also see Parks are for People here.
My, what a refreshing idea - a Councilperson who actually sent out a questionnaire to her constituents asking for their opinion. We should all be so lucky. (You can enlarge font size with control+).
_Page_1.jpg)
_Page_2.jpg)
_Page_3.jpg)
- Fees: For Denver residents, a $25 annual user fee and coinciding color-coded dog tag will be required for entry into all Denver dog parks. This annual fee is for one dog. Additional dogs under one owner may be eligible for a discounted annual user fee for each additional dog. Non-Denver residents will be required to pay a $40 annual user fee for use of all Denver dog parks. Volunteer efforts in helping maintain dog park facilities and helping with educational outreach will be recognized through a discounted fee program. Fees will cover costs for additional enforcement in Denver parks, will go toward matching funds for building new facilities, and will provide a more sustainable revenue stream for maintenance.
- Fines: To stress the education and requirement of licensure, vaccination, and payment of the annual user fee for access to Denver dog parks, fines for falsification of any of these requirements is being recommended.
- Owner Responsibility: In order for dog owners and dog park users to have a full understanding of the rules and regulations and requirements for use of Denver’s dog park facilities, owners will be required to review and sign off on educational materials clarifying these elements at the time of purchase of the annual dog park user fee.
With 19 million houses now sitting empty, the mortgage banking industry continues to grind through the foreclosure process, although apparently without enthusiasm, to evict even more delinquent home owners. However, there may be hope on the horizon. You've probably heard of a case or two where the bank couldn't produce the mortgage paper to prove that they owned the house. What if they couldn't prove that they owned 62 million of them? From here:
That means hordes of victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and clear—while the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.
California Precedent
The latest of these court decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E–11. The court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:
Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.
Posts
All Comments
