ENCLAVE IS CLOSING"
Here's how things will work over the next week or so: (subject to change)
Wednesday night will be SKALES. Cross and rain are presenting. Well worth the trip, they do a great presentation.
Next weekend will be the last parties. Both nights are play parties. Same rules as always. Same prices as always (15$ for members/$20 for guests) Same hours (8pm - 2am)
Sunday, the 9th, at noon, we'll be having a "going out of business" sale. Raffles, auctions and a kick asss BBQ courtesy of Blackwulf and MtDancer. Just about everything in the building can go. In addition to a few bucks to put towards the debtload, anything we sell I don't have to move and pay storage on. So, here's your chance to own a little piece of things. And it's not just the play equipment. There are some really nice couches, tables, artwork, chairs, etc in there. Easily nice enough for home use, if you needed furniture for your house. Some of the artwork is racy, but much of it is nice enough for home use.
For a gallery of auction items click here
Our address is: 6040 E 50th, Commerce City.
| Update on the Co. Supreme Court |
|
|
|
| Thu, 01/03/08 | |
|
The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear the city's appeal.
My reaction: A: That seems to imply that they can have reasons other than those listed in the denial issued by the city originally. My understanding is that if they have five reasons to deny you then they must list all five on the denial "finding of fact". They cannot list one of them and IF they lose the appeal choose another reason. This is so that the applicant knows the reasons why they are being denied and has the ability, through the appeal to city council, to argue agains those reasons. My understanding is that they must list ALL reasons for denial in the finding of fact and are required to hold an adversarial hearing to allow you to address all reasons given. If they can create new reasons when they lose, then you can never find the end of that trail. They could give a reason, lose, give a new one, lose, etc. It allows an openended process that in effect becomes a barrier by it's very unending nature. To prevent regulation by process instead of by the law, they can't piecemeal out reasons. They issued a denial and stated the reasons. We won the appeal on the reason. They changed the reason DURING the appeal hearing. They issued another denial, based on the new reason, without holding a new hearing or allowing us to present evidence against it. In essence, this means they decided, by fiat, to deny on the new reason. (The fact that this "new" reason is invalid and can be proven so through citation of city code and Sec. of State. documentation seems moot to the court, at this point. The city hasn't had to address the validity OF this new reason because they did NOT hold the requisite hearing on it once they issued it and because they are not arguing that the new reason is valid, only that they have a right to create a new reason. I believe that the reason they didn't offer a new hearing when they changed reasons is that they know, and they know WE can prove, that the new reason is bogus. They declared another property illegal prior to any contact we had with them. This wasn't optional for them as city code states they "shall" discontinue that use under certain circumstances. We have the paperwork to show that the circumstances happened. We have the property owners testimony that he was declared illegal. We have statements from two different zoning officials, prior to acquiring the property and during an initial meeting with the city about licensing, that the property was declared illegal. The zoning official who stated such did the investigation into our license application and declined to list that reason in her finding of fact to deny us. When they lost on the merits, they decide this other property is legal again to use it again us. They cannot do that. The law does not allow it.) I hate the law. This is about as silly as Clinton's "depends what the definition of the word "is" is. The second issue being appealed sounds like boilerplate to me. Anytime a court finds against a city it's substituting it's discretion for the city's. So, here we go again. We're down to arguing IF they can change reasons when they lose on the first one. IF they can change reasons at will, the issue would be whether or not the new reason can stand. I don't believe they can change reasons when they lose. Neither does my lawyer or any other lawyer I've talked to. I don't believe, even if they COULD have presented a new reason, that they could then rule on it without holding a new hearing. In this case, had they tried to change the reason and offered a new hearing we would have defeated that one just as readily and this whole thing would have ended two and a half years ago. (which is why I believe they did it the way they did and simply ruled against us without accepting evidence from us on the new reason)
~Michael |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|