I have run a campaign that is honest and above-board, positive, filled with real content, and gentlemanly toward my opponents. I have been unfairly attacked in mailers funded by an out-of-town political activist group and an in-town mom who has apparently swallowed the blogged-about misinformation. Longmont deserves better than this.

On Saturday January 19th there arrived in Longmont mailboxes an attack piece containing partial information, effective misquotations by selecting material out of context, and the like. It is paid for by Colorado League of Taxpayers. Midweek before the election, an eight-page letter sent to many houses in Longmont repeats much of this misinformation. I suppose I am flattered that my campaign raises such attention, but I would have preferred to have a conversation about the major content of my platform rather than deal with inaccuracies, out-of-context quotations, and mis-formed statements. My campaign for Council has plenty of positive material to work with that is unchallenged, and my campaign has been positive and above-board and shall remain that way. Nevertheless I am impelled to respond to errors, purposeful misinterpretations, and shortcomings in the attack piece. Kerry failed to respond to inaccurate attack ads and it cost him, so I’ll take a lesson there.

A few elements of the attack piece are worth responding to. My choosing certain ones should in no way be regarded as an admission that others are accurate, of course. I simply have some other things to spend my time on right now.

Let me count some ways…

1. “Being more like Boulder sure sounds good to me!” — a Juday supporter.

Let’s look at the context for that quotation. In the letter of support from Craig Smith, the entirety of which you can find on this website, we find (emphasis added and quotation in red):

“While exactly duplicating another city isn’t possible or even desirable, what would it actually mean to Longmont residents if we were more like Boulder?

“It would mean that there might be a pedestrian-friendly downtown area that actually attracted high-quality restaurants, bars and upscale shops rather than pawn shops. We might be able to sit at an outdoor table and enjoy a quiet meal without listening to semi-trailer trucks and mufflerless motorcycles roaring by 30 feet away on U.S. Highway 287. There might be more walking and bicycling trails and other opportunities for outdoor recreation.

“Most importantly, our property values would be significantly higher and less affected by market downturns such as the presently bursting housing bubble. The past city councils have lead Longmont down the path of unlimited housing with sprawl in every direction. A more limited housing supply is actually beneficial for our residents. Boulder, with its limited growth policies, actually cares more about the long-term welfare of its current citizens than about the short-term infusion of fees from outside real estate developers. What a concept.

“Being more like Boulder sure sounds good to me! Vote for Richard Juday . He has the vision and commitment to make Longmont a much more livable community.”

I can certainly live with the vision of Boulder-like aspects that Smith describes. Couldn’t you?

2. The flier states — knowingly incorrectly – that I advocate tracing customers to their residence by writing down license numbers. Here’s the context that this misinformation is drawn from:

I would have an IGA in place before BBS, Inc., ever even thought of building in City A. Under the IGA plan, City A would recover its infrastructure and administrative costs from the sales tax heap, and the balance would be distributed according to the proportion of income its citizens provide to BBS, Inc. There are two ways to do the accounting; one would be to have a customer designate the City to which the sales tax revenue goes, and the other is to do occasional studies of customer populations (write down license numbers and trace them to residence; in-store surveys, etc.). I prefer having the customer report his city. The actual price of the goods is fairly represented, there is no invasion of privacy, the register burden is low (I already have to enter my Zip Code when using my American Express card at numerous gasoline stations). The reportage should be accurate in that a customer is motivated to have his tax dollar go to his own city. In my example, City A might take 10% off the top for administrative costs, and of the 90% remaining, half would go to City A, a quarter to City B, etc.

Notice that having offered other methods of tracking the city from which a sale originates, I am explicit that the customer-reported method is the one to use. That redounds to the benefit of the customer’s own city’s tax revenue. I’d go beyond that to say that a customer could certainly decline to provide such information, though that would be to the detriment of his city.

3. Something of a deal is made in the websites cited in the attack piece about out-of-state donors to my campaign, as though there were something malfeasant about friends or family making a campaign contribution. Longmont election rules explicitly permit such contributions, of course. If you are interested, I’ll be glad to tell you more about my hiking buddies, anthropology prof and woodworking pal, former girlfriend, patent attorney who worked for me as an undergraduate student twenty years ago, several-times-flown astronaut, etc. Not a politico in the bunch. Just long-time personal friends who know me well enough to support me in my campaign.

4.  The writer of the eight-page letter has recovered a page from my campaign of two years ago, in which I pledged to raise no funds for my campaign in that 2005 election.  Indeed I accepted no contributions to that election, as may be verified with the City Clerk.  She mistakenly thinks I had established that policy for the 2008 special election, but made no attempt to verify that with me. I’d have clarified that situation for her even as I clarify it for the reader here.

– Richard Juday