LifeBridge church project OK’d by Firestone voters

Firestone welcomes Union
Nearly 60 percent of voters approve LifeBridge development

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

FIRESTONE — Firestone voters want Union to be part of their town.

Nearly 60 percent of voters in Tuesday’s special election wanted the town to annex LifeBridge Christian Church’s 350-acre planned development at Colo. Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3 1/2.

The results uphold the Firestone Town Board of Trustees’ vote to annex the site this spring.

Martin Dickey — chief operating officer of 4C, LifeBridge’s business organization — said 4C and church officials were optimistic about the election and excited about the results.

“Once all the facts got out, certainly people would be able to make fully informed decisions, and tonight was the validation of that,” Dickey said.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone, the group that petitioned to overturn Firestone’s approval and put Union to the voters, said he and other volunteers were disappointed.

But, Sanger added, InformFirestone members respect the will of the voters and were pleased with how many people turned out to vote.

“We tried to make our case to people, but we were vastly outspent,” Sanger said of the $14,000 that 4C spent in support of its development. “As (another volunteer) said, ‘Not every David and Goliath story ends with the little guy winning.’”

Sanger said InformFirestone volunteers will continue to follow the Union project as it moves forward.

Dickey said 4C officials will work to move Union forward as soon as possible. In fact, 4C officials will meet Thursday with a possible “mixed-use development partner,” he said.

Firestone Town Clerk Judy Hegwood said the election had “a pretty big turnout.”

With 868 people casting ballots Tuesday, nearly as many people voted in the Union special election as did so in April to elect a new mayor and three new trustees.

A steady stream of people passed through Firestone Town Hall until the polls closed at 7 p.m. As they left, residents cited a long and varied list of reasons for casting their votes one way or the other.

“It’s too far away, and with the economy the way it is, I think (Firestone) would be biting off more than they can chew,” Stan Miyasaki said after casting his ballot against the annexation.

Both Rhoda Elrod and her daughter Phoebe Elrod voted to annex Union for several reasons, including tax revenue and proactive growth.

“We think it’s an opportunity for Firestone, and we think the Union development is a positive thing,” Rhoda Elrod said. “It’s not like it’s an X-rated store; a Christian-based endeavor is a good thing.”

Kathy Spradling voted against Union because she didn’t think Firestone officials were forthcoming with information about the project. Stacy Adams voted no on the annexation because — with a boyfriend who is a firefighter — she worried the town would not be able to provide police and fire protection to a development so far away.

Tracy Keeney voted to annex the property because he wants Firestone to have a strong presence on the Colo. 119 corridor.

“That’s going to be a huge area of growth, and I want Firestone to have a good foothold there,” he said.

Greg Small also believes Union will be a boon to the town, but his vote came down to a freedom-of-religion issue.

“I’m tired of churches getting kicked around,” he said.

4C funds pro-Union campaign
Church developer has spent $14,000

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

FIRESTONE — The only contributor to the pro-Union campaign is the Union developer: Corporation for Community Christian Connection, or 4C, the business organization of LifeBridge Christian Church.

 Citizens for Firestone’s Future collected $14,152.87 in campaign contributions — and 4C donated all of it.

The campaign group has been urging Firestone voters in Tuesday’s election to allow the town to annex the church’s 350-acre planned Union development at Colo. Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3 1/2.

“I think (Union) is an incredibly important issue for this town, and when you put things into perspective of what’s at stake, I think it’s reasonable,” Tom Cooper of Citizens for Firestone’s Future said of the dollar amount.

InformFirestone, the group that landed the Union annexation on the special election ballot and has been campaigning against it, reported that it collected and spent $68.08.

The campaign finance reports were turned into the Firestone town clerk Friday.

Citizens for Firestone’s Future reported that it spent $3,800 to make phones calls to voters and another $3,631 to mail fliers to residents.

The group also spent about $1,780 on yard signs and $4,031 on campaign consultants. The rest went to Web site costs,
legal fees and a newspaper ad.

Martin Dickey, 4C chief operating officer, said the company gave the money to Citizens for Firestone’s Future because “it is certainly important that the truth be out there.”

Dickey said organizers started the campaign group because they have an obligation to inform voters, and 4C donated because it has a duty to be good stewards of Life-Bridge’s resources and rights.

“We unapologetically will defend our property rights against people who are misrepresenting the facts as it relates to our business or our property,” Dickey said.

 According to state campaign finance laws, InformFirestone did not have to file a report because the group collected and spent less than $200, which is the reporting trigger point.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone said the group chose to file a report to clear up any misconceptions about the group — and prevent any new misconceptions from forming.

“We filed because we’ve obviously had the charges of being well-funded and being outsiders,” he said. “We felt it was in the best interest of the people to know what are we funding.”

InformFirestone did not itemize their contributions or expenditures, but Sanger said the money came from volunteers buying reams of paper or Sanger picking up the cost of the Web site.

Sanger pointed out that 4C money is not Firestone money, and he described the pro-Union campaigning in recent weeks as a “blitz.”

“It’s in the developer’s interest to get the side of the story that looks the best out there,” Sanger said. “I’m not criticizing; they’re going to do what they need to do. But you can’t expect to see 100 percent truth or both sides of the issue in a campaign like that.”

Sanger added, “I think it really illustrates the David versus Goliath thing that is actually going on here.”

Cooper, who serves on the Firestone Planning Commission and started Citizens for Firestone’s Future, said he contacted 4C as soon as he found out Union was going to voters in a special election.

“I reached out to 4C, and I’m very glad there’s an organization willing to help get the information that is critical out to the people,” Cooper said.

Citizens for Firestone’s Future, InformFirestone have not had to report campaign finances — yet

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

FIRESTONE — Voters won’t know where the money is coming from in Firestone’s upcoming special election until Friday.

Two groups — Citizens for Firestone’s Future and InformFirestone — are campaigning for and against the Union annexation in the Sept. 30 election, but neither has had to report their campaign finances.

If either group has collected or spent more than $200, Friday will be the next deadline for the groups to turn in finance reports.

Tom Cooper, who started Citizens for Firestone’s Future, said he is not sure what the group has spent in its efforts to get voters to pass the Union annexation.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone also doesn’t know exactly how much the group has spent, but said its members’ version of fundraising is “scratching together a few dollars” among themselves.

He estimated InformFirestone has spent less than $100 on its campaign efforts. The group has a $20 limit on donations, Sanger said, and he usually asks people to buy a ream of paper or toner for the group instead of taking the money.

“If I don’t know what I’m going to spend it on, I’m not going to take it,” Sanger said.

Cooper, a resident who serves on the Firestone Planning Commission, said he contacted Martin Dickey, chief operating officer of 4C, LifeBridge Christian Church’s business arm, to coordinate resources.

Citizens for Firestone’s Future two weeks ago mailed a full-color, cardstock glossy flier to many Firestone households.

When asked who helped fund the mailing and the group’s other campaign efforts, Cooper said: “I’m working very closely with Martin (Dickey), so the resources are being used as appropriate and as allowed.”

Cooper could not provide estimates on how much Citizens for Firestone’s Future has collected or spent so far.

“Things are moving fast and furious right now,” he said last week. “But I can say we’ll meet all the deadlines for filing.”

Because Firestone is a town, not a home-rule city, many aspects of town government — including campaign finance reporting requirements — fall under state law.

State law defines an issue committee as two or more people who oppose or support a ballot item, said Wayne Munster, acting director of the Colorado Secretary of State elections division.

Issues committees do not have to file finance reports if they have collected or spent less than $200, Munster said.

Neither InformFirestone nor Citizens for Firestone’s Future filed a campaign finance report by Sept. 9, which was the first deadline before the election, Firestone town clerk Judy Hegwood said.

She spoke with representatives from both groups, and both said they had not spent or collected money before the first deadline.

The next reporting deadline is Friday, and the final deadline is Oct. 30.

Firestone to vote on LifeBridge
Residents will decide on 350-acre church development

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

FIRESTONE — One week from today, Firestone voters will decide whether Union will be part of their town.

The Sept. 30 election will determine whether Firestone can annex LifeBridge Christian Church’s 350-acre planned development at Colo. Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3 1/2.

And both Citizens for Firestone’s Future and InformFirestone have been campaigning to sway voters in the upcoming election.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone said the group did not originally intend to campaign against the development. Sanger, Tom Ward and Tom Mason simply thought town leaders rushed into the project, so they put together InformFirestone and collected enough signatures to force the annexation to a special election.

The group, which now has about 15 volunteers, wanted to get more information about how Union would affect the town.

But, Sanger said, when Firestone trustees set the election for Sept. 30 instead of Nov. 4 — and when InformFirestone was unable to get more information about costs, infrastructure and public improvements — the group started urging people to vote against the annexation.

The group printed and passed out fliers and posted information on its Web site, www.informfirestone.com, but mostly it’s relying on word of mouth, Sanger said.

“Our initial purpose was to inform the public, to get answers and get them out there,” Sanger said. “We didn’t get those answers, so we felt like all that was left to do was say, ‘Vote no.’”

But Citizens for Firestone’s Future is urging voters to say “yes” next week.

Tom Cooper, who serves on the Firestone Planning Commission, started the group to campaign in support of the planned development.

Cooper said he reached out to Martin Dickey, chief operating officer of 4C — LifeBridge Christian Church’s business organization — to help get Union approved.

“I’ll do anything I can to help get this through,” Cooper said.  <emphasis ours>

Citizens for Firestone’s Future mailed fliers to residents earlier this month and its members have been calling voters, Cooper said. The group also is sending e-mails and pointing people to its Web site, www.citizensforfire stonesfuture.com.

Cooper argues that growth along Colo. 119 is inevitable, and that development should happen in a municipality, not in Weld County. Annexing Union will allow Firestone to control how the highway corridor builds out, he said.

“I have tremendous confidence in the Firestone planning department, and I think managing growth on that corridor is something Firestone will do successfully,” he said.

Annexation also doesn’t equal building permits, Cooper added. The Union project has to clear more steps before crews start building, and those steps require more public hearings in front of the town’s planning commission and board of trustees, he said.

He also points to the town’s financial analysis that estimates the project will generate more than $8 million in one-time revenue for the town in development fees and use taxes.

The town’s analysis also estimates that Union will bring in nearly $1.4 million annually for the town in property and sales tax revenue at build-out.

However, Sanger pointed out, that is gross — not net — revenue. Firestone’s financial analysis doesn’t factor in how much it will cost the town to provide infrastructure and services, such as police and fire protection, to the development.

Sanger said a project the size of Union needs careful and deliberate examination. But Firestone leaders did not have — and still may not know — all the information about the how Union will affect the town and its residents, he said.

For example, the town did not have a signed annexation agreement when Firestone trustees voted to annex the land, he said.

For Sanger and others with InformFirestone, the issue comes down to one question: “Do you feel like you should support (an issue) when you don’t have all the information you need to have?” he asked.

Rachel Carter can be reached at 303-684-5216 or rcarter@times-call.com.

We at InformFirestone were not surprised by the ‘outsiders’ claim, as we had already seen that in the editorial co-written by former Firestone Mayor Mike SImone and current Firestone Mayor Chad Auer (as a private citizen of course), to which InformFirestone responded with a guest editorial found here.

What we did find curious was the cost incurred by CFFF in preparing and sending out this mailer.  As a group that was accused of being backed by “well-funded special interest groups based outside Firestone”, we were surprised that CFFF would be able to raise so much money so quickly inside Firestone.  This mailer alone truly did dwarf InformFirestone’s entire budget.

Later last week, a post on tri-town.com provided a explanation to this question.  CFFF is indeed being funded by groups outside of Firestone.  For confirmation, people need to look no further than the CFFF website, which now has no mention of ‘outsiders’.

Fortunately, we still have the mailers, which bear proof of CFFF’s hypocrisy and the trick it was trying to pull on the voters of Firestone.

Print out a flyer to read and/or distribute to friends, family and neighbors by clicking here.

Side #2 is available here.

F    –    FIRESTONE

                                   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Firestone, CO                                                             CONTACT: Dan Sanger

September 13^th, 2008                                                                         

5:00 PM                                                                     informfirestone@gmail.com  

FIRESTONE - September 13, 2008 - Thousands of dollars from unknown sources are being targeted against a local grassroots organization formed to raise awareness of issues with major consequences to the future of Firestone. 

In the past week, residents of Firestone received a mailer by a group referring to themselves as “Citizens for Firestone’s Future” (CFFF).  A full-color mailer of this size distributed through the U.S. postal service to thousands of Firestone households represents a cost beyond the reach of organizations formed by ordinary citizens interested in good government.

Not only is this group extremely well-funded by sources with deep pockets, but they have elected to propagandize Firestone voters with statements they know to be distortions and in some cases wholesale lies.  With very little real information, the CFFF political campaign marks a downturn in the actual discussion of issues on the subject of the Union annexations leading up to the special election on September 30^th.

InformFirestone has been working for over three months to acquire and provide information to the residents of Firestone in order to assist them in making decisions independent of those made by trustees, previous and current, and town officials.   It is unfortunate that this last-minute group has chosen to intentionally misinform and deflect the focus from the substantive issues of the annexation and development rather than present reasoned arguments for their position.

A joint opinion by the former and current mayors of Firestone recently published in the Longmont Time-Call perpetuated the lies and distortions of this group.

InformFirestone was given the opportunity to discuss issues with pro-Union advocates at a Candidates’ Forum, sponsored by the Carbon Valley Herald on September 24^th at 7 pm at Frederick High School.  We enthusiastically agreed to participate because a discussion of issues would be in the best interests of the voters of Firestone.  Now we have learned that the pro-Union advocates have chosen not to attend this forum.  Apparently slick mailers that are off topic and without an opportunity to challenge is their preferred method of persuasion.

The over 300 supporters of InformFirestone, who signed our petition in June, deserve better, and as such InformFirestone intends to continue focusing on the issues in this election.

Something that immediately came up was a sense of surprise and shock that so quickly after the induction of a new Board of Trustees, annexations as large and as complex as the Union annexations were approved.  Surely, we thought, with a new Mayor and 2/3s of the Board of Trustees being new, less than a month in office is not enough time to take any action on such an issue, and as such, most of us had not had the opportunity to ask a wide variety of questions having to do with these annexations.

Democracy should not be a “you snooze, you lose” proposition.  This is why the rights to petition and referendum are in Colorado law.  We started two referendum petitions, and collected more than enough signatures to send the Union annexation ordinances to a vote of the people, despite only having a week and a half to do so.  The petitions were validated in July.

Along the way, InformFirestone, to the dismay of reporters and members of the public at large, stayed neutral, and tried to fill our role as information-seekers.  This did not stop others in the public from trying to characterize us and hurling slurs at us, demeaning our efforts, and the democratic process as a whole.  At first we had a great many of our questions answered, however, as time went on, those answers raised more questions.

As of late, the answers to our most pertinent questions have not been answered, or have not been answered adequately.  We have no answers on water, just a vague response that the “developer will bring the water.”  We have not been able to see a Public Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement (PIRA), without which all approximations of this project’s financial feasibility are called into question.  We have asked for those answers, and they have not been given.

What has been given, unfortunately, is rhetoric and name-calling.  It was with wonder and disbelief that we read a recent opinion piece written by both former Firestone Mayor Mike Simone and current Mayor Chad Auer.  We have to admit, we are not sure if the “opposition” that their Honors speak of is coming from InformFirestone.  However, if it is, we cannot even call their charges against us a distortion, rather, it is an out-and-out lie.  If there are “generously funded special interests… integral to the opposition’s efforts,” we have seen no trace of them. 

If there are “special interest groups… rooted outside our region” that are working against the annexation of Union into Firestone, we have not heard about that, either.  As the group that started the referendum petition process, we would think we would know.  It is ironic that after being accused of not doing our homework, two people who have been integral to the annexation of Union into Firestone would be caught spreading such blatant misinformation.  It is disappointing to see, and makes one wonder what other information Mr. Simone and Auer have been wrong about.

Sadly, the rise of rhetoric and electioneering makes us understand that no more answers will be given, only more rhetoric.  The Town has made their choice, and so we must urge the citizens of Firestone to vote NO on September 30^th.

Tom Mason, Tom Ward, and Dan Sanger are the founders of InformFirestone.

InformFirestone

Lately there have been all sorts of things said or written about InformFirestone.  Let’s sort them out.

“InformFirestone is an ‘outside group’, trying to

dictate some ‘outside agenda’ to the residents of

Firestone.”

This is a lie.  While it is true that there have been people from outside of Firestone who have spoken out against the annexations of the Union properties into Firestone, it is untrue to say that these people have been, are now, or ever will be members of InformFirestone.  InformFirestone has always been open about its membership, though that has not stopped members of the public from speculating on it.  Interestingly, two people listed as ’supporters’ of Citizens for Firestone’s Future, have been to one of our meetings and have seen the membership requirements.  Why they are allowing this deceit to proceed is curious to us.

“People from outside Firestone assisted in the

petition drive in June.”

This is a fact.  Those of us in InformFirestone have never denied this.  The ‘why’ in this question is simple.  After starting our petition drive, we were contacted by volunteers who wanted to assist us in our petition drive.  We, being short on time, agreed.  Does this make InformFirestone an ‘outside group’?  Absolutely not.  InformFirestone was always in the lead role, both in leadership and time donated.  In fact, out of 338 signatures gathered, over 85% of the signatures were gathered by Firestone residents.  One non-Firestone resident did overstep her bounds by claiming membership and claiming to be a spokesperson for the group.  This was quickly corrected.  As a grassroots effort, InformFirestone is always learning and working on what we feel is the best way to run our organization.  We thank those who volunteered to help us, but at no time have we ever turned over leadership to outside influences.  In fact, of those non-residents who volunteered, the vast majority we have not heard from since June.

“InformFirestone is only a ‘one-issue’ group.”

This is curious accusation levelled against a group that is just over 3 months in age.  While we suppose it is true that InformFirestone has not yet spoken out on various other issues, the truth is, we’re busy enough as it is.  But don’t worry, there are other issues that InformFirestone plans to talk about in the future, such as the under-representation of certain areas of Firestone in town government.

“InformFirestone has misrepresented its

mission.”

This is a lie.  On the contrary, we have stayed true to our mission.  Despite urging from people on both sides of the Union Annexation issue, from within and outside of Firestone, we at InformFirestone have stayed true to our mission.  Our goal was and still is to be a source of information and a sounding board for the community.  Now, on the Union Annexation issue, a group has started to send out rhetoric, misinformation and outright lies.  Given this development, we feel that it is in the best interests of Firestone to take a stand on this issue.

“InformFirestone can be linked to special interest

groups.”

This is a lie.  As you can see, the further we go, the more outlandish the claims.  InformFirestone can claim no alliance with any ’special-interest groups’, not can any claim alliance with us.  We have never consulted with, nor have we tried to contact any ’special-interest group’. 

“InformFirestone is generously funded.”

This depends on your definition of ‘generously funded’.  If you call scratching together a few dollars to buy paper and toner ‘generously funded’, then this is I guess a fact.  If your definition is more realistic, then of course this is a lie.  Curiously, a mailer was sent out recently by the group “Citizens for Firestone’s Future”.  In our research, we found out that a glossy, color, card stock mailer sent out to the entire community of Firestone would run well into the thousands of dollars.  This group also is claiming plans to distribute campaign signs.  The question should be, who is funding Citizens for Firestone’s Future?

“InformFirestone was open to a debate hosted by

the Carbon Valley Herald, but proponents of the

Union Annexation declined.”

This is a fact.  Despite the rhetoric, lies, and slurs directed at the members of InformFirestone, we felt that participation at a forum discussing the full spectrum of issues surrouding the Union annexations was in the best interests of the voters of Firestone.  Unfortunately, after trying in vain to find someone willing to stand up and discuss the issues, the Herald contacted us and let us know that there would be no Union annexation section of the candidates’ forum hosted by the Herald on September 24th at Frederick High School.  Apparently it is easier for those who would hurl slurs and deceitful invective at those who are questioning the status quo in Firestone to do so behind a computer screen, newpaper, or mailer.

InformFirestone is committed to keep talking about the issues that affect citizens of Firestone.  It is unfortunate that those who feel threatened by open and civil discussion of the issues resort to such tactics as smearing, fear-based electioneering, and lying to try to convince people that they are right.  It is spiteful, and it is insulting to the citizens of our town.