Coloradans: Vote NO on 60, 61, and 101
A coalition of over 600 organizations is opposed to these measures. This includes a broad spectrum of businesses, municipalities, and organizations. Groups such as AARP, CH2M Hill, Denver Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Trout Unlimited, Colorado Springs Police Protective Association, Colorado Ski Country USA, Continental Airlines, and the Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado have signed on to voice their opposition.
These measures claim to save taxpayers money, however, if these measures pass, taxpayers can expect pay many new or increased costs. For example, college tuition will skyrocket far more than current anticipated increases, your water and wastewater rates could increase by 100%, and you could see new toll booths on the highways.
The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel newspaper even went as far as to write an opposition to the bill on the front page of the newspaper, violating a self imposed rule of keeping editorials in the editorial section.
"Proponents of the three ballot measures will no doubt accuse us of scare tactics, as they have anyone who criticizes the measures. But there is ample reason to be scared if you value a state with adequate law enforcement and judicial systems, respected higher education, good schools, functional roads, responsive local governments and a healthy private sector."
The Greeley Tribune writes:
"Republicans, Democrats, unaffiliated voters — it doesn't matter what political philosophy people embrace. These two amendments and one proposition could mean disaster for Colorado.
That's why political affiliation has played no part in who opposes these ballot issues. They have received opposition from every sector of the political arena.
There's a good reason for that. The extreme nature of these tax- and fee-cutting measures would cripple local governments and school districts, as well as worsen an already bad situation with the state budget."
The Boulder Daily Camera writes:
"We could speculate what roads and bridges will look like, patched with pennies. Or how a judicial system with courts, cops and prisons will work, run on pennies. Or just how badly our students will fare against their competition elsewhere in the country and abroad after we trap them in huge classrooms in cramped buildings, destined for failure.
But instead, voters could consider this one thing: Jobs. Would employers be able to attract workers to such a state? Would good teachers move here? Would any company in their right mind want to move, or stay, in
No on 60. No on 61. No on 101."
The website, www.donthurtcolorado.com provides the following summaries of the ballot measures.
AMENDMENT 60
Schools would lose more than a billion dollars in funding each year. The school districts would be required to cut property taxes by 50 percent. Think of it – school tax revenue cut in half! This would be on top of cuts that have already occurred. Inevitably, there will be more closings and even fewer teachers.
The language in the amendment claims that the state would have to make up the difference, but where would the money come from? The state is already strapped for cash and has cut billions from the budget.
Would overturn hundreds of local elections – commonly called de-Brucings – that have occurred since 1992. Local voters throughout
Bottom line - The lure of lower property taxes is a hollow promise, further crippling our schools and other vital local services.
AMENDMENT 61
Amendment 61 will collapse
The amendment would severely limit – even prohibit – what it calls "government borrowing." On the surface, it might sound like a good idea. But in reality, this proposal has nothing to do with problems at the national level like borrowing and deficit spending. Proponents are trying to mislead voters by using words like "government borrowing" when, in reality, they are trying to do away with state and local bonding.
Bonding is a prudent form of financing that governments have relied on for decades. Bonding makes it possible to build schools in your neighborhood, fire stations, water projects, prisons, airports, health facilities, highways, transit, colleges… the list goes on and on. Amendment 61 would make it very difficult – even impossible – for the state and local governments to issue bonds.
Local districts would have to repay bonds within ten years, instead of a reasonable time frame such as 20 years. Eliminating longer-term bonds for large projects could raise repayment costs to exorbitant levels. Why should such fiscal handcuffs be put into our State Constitution? Let the decision be made the local level on case by case basis.
The state would be prohibited from using financial instruments like "revenue anticipation notes" and "certificates of participation." The state has used these tools for decades to even out cash flow throughout the year. Not being able to use these tools will impede the state's ability to provide services – even meet payroll – during times of the year when revenue is low.
The amendment also would require that after bonds have been repaid, any taxes used for repayment must be lowered – even if those taxes weren't raised in the first place. For instance, when the bonds that financed T-REX and other transportation projects have been repaid, the state gas tax would have to be cut by $168 million a year – at a time when our road needs are greater than ever.
Instead of attracting investment,
Bottom line – Amendment 61 is a crazy experiment that would eliminate any practical means for state and local governments to make capital improvements.
PROPOSITION 101
Eliminates a major funding source for road and bridge construction across the state. The annual vehicle registration fee would be cut to an arbitrary $10 – no longer based on vehicle size or weight. The registration fee hasn't been that low since 1919 when the state had only a handful of paved roads. Road budgets would be cut by hundreds of millions of dollars, meaning more potholes and crumbling bridges. Not only would state highway projects be cut, but local projects would be as well, since cities and counties receive a major portion of their road funding from this fee.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) estimates that Proposition 101 would eliminate a quarter of its annual revenue – about $277 million!
The Specific Ownership Tax on cars would be reduced to $2 on new cars and $1 on used cars. This revenue actually helps fund schools districts and other local government priorities. Local revenue would be cut by some $500 million annually.
The state income tax also would be reduced incrementally to 3.5 percent. This would eliminate a quarter of the state's revenue from income tax when state budget already has been severely impacted by the recession. Such a drastic reduction would mean even more cuts in critical state services.
Bottom line - Proposition 101 would severely impact everything from roads to schools, with no regard for the actual cost of providing these vital services.
posted by Me @ 3:59 PM
2 comments
