State Rep. Mark Larson (R-Cortez) is urging voters to turn down two ballot initiatives that he says, if passed, would threaten the survival of special tax districts and stall economic growth in Colorado.

The two proposals to amend the Colorado Constitution will go to voters on Nov. 7.

Amendment 21, known as Tax Cut 2000, would shave $25 per year off of special-district tax rolls, leading to the eventual elimination of poorer rural special districts that provide such services as fire protection, health care and libraries.

Douglas Bruce, author of the ballot initiative and creator of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights amendment, believes the state government should pick up the slack in services by using state taxes.

Amendment 24, or the Responsible Growth Initiative, would require local governmental agencies to delineate elaborate growth maps for the county or city specifying those areas best suited to development because they already are developed or are near sewer and water infrastructure. Then local voters would be asked to approve or reject the maps.

If the voters reject the maps, then those property owners within the suggested growth zones could not build sizable subdivisions or commercial businesses until they are approved by a vote of the community.

The proposal, supported by well-known environmental groups such as the Audubon Society, the Colorado Environmental Coalition, and the Sierra Club, would negate the Landowner-Initiated Zoning (LIZ) plan that has been adopted by Montezuma County, and put control of private property rights more in the hands of local voters.

"Not everyone understands the broader ramifications of what this thing does for growth in Colorado. It would kill it," said Larson on Monday, speaking to a group of real-estate agents.

"We are wrestling with growth issues here through LIZ, but many communities in the state are not, so those special interests who did not want to wait for the legislature to work it out — and we’re doing that — are proposing to change the constitution to get what they want."

Calling the bill "elitist" because it favors landowners with already developed property and limits private property rights, Larson warned that state polls are showing it will likely pass if the word does not get out about negative aspects of it.

He said that a recent statewide poll showed that 83 percent of Coloradoans support growth control.

But 90 percent of growth in Colorado is within 15 miles of the I-25 corridor stretching from Fort Collins to Pueblo. That, Larson says, could cause the issue to pass because those Front Range communities suffering from explosions in development, traffic, smog and the disappearance of open space make up the majority of the state voters, and could pass the measure.

"This is an ugly ballot initiative that will stop development," Larson said.

"People have the perception that ‘I’m in, shut the door’, but don’t realize the negative consequences. We need some growth in order to survive."

According to the constitution amendment proposal, cities and counties with populations under 1,000 could opt out; those under 10,000 could ask voters to become exempt.

Counties and cities over 25,000 would be required to comply, with no option to go to the voters to overturn it, if the initiative passes.

Amendment 21 likewise would cause major problems if it passes, local officials said.

Cortez City Manager Hal Shepherd spoke of the problems Amendment 21 will cause for special districts.

"Under this, libraries would be the first to go out of business, then sewer, parks and fire districts would be cut," he said.

"No businesses will come here because the services will not be there if this passes. It could pass because voters will read the title (in November), see ‘tax cut’ and vote for it, not realizing it will hurt economic development. You cannot sell Colorado with this proposal."

Larson criticized Bruce for claiming that the state could pick up the slack left after special districts are dissolved, with tax revenue previously approved by the voters.

He said that the state is limited by strict tax rules under TABOR on how much it can spend, so costs would fall to the local governmental agencies.

"The county cannot afford to pick up the price of, say, fire protection without cutting another department like law enforcement," he said.