A forum Friday evening on Amendments 21 and 24, which will be on the Nov. 2 ballot, proved again that a threat from the Front Range will bring together Montezuma County residents from all parts of the political spectrum.

As state Rep. Mark Larson (R-Cortez) said to Chester Tozer, president of the Southwest Colorado Land-owners Association, "Chester, it’s been about a year since we’ve agreed on something!"

Democrat Earl Rohrbaugh had opened the forum, which drew an audience of about 30, with a brief history of the initiative process in Colorado.

Those who spoke were concerned that Amendment 21 (titled "Tax Cut 2000") and Amendment 24 ("Citizen Management of Growth") do not fit rural Colorado’s needs but may be enacted because of support in urban Front Range precincts.

Amendment 21 is the brain-child of Douglas Bruce, the Colorado Springs lawyer who was a principal backer of 1992’s Amendment 1, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).

If passed, the one-paragraph Amendment 21 would reduce by $25 each special-district tax bill for each taxpayer each year — $25 each off the fire-protection, library and mosquito district bills the first year, $50 the second year, etc.

The accelerating rate of defunding special districts would bankrupt most of them within a few years, said Cortez City Manager Hal Shepherd.

Speaking as a private citizen, Shepherd cited the example of the Colorado Springs Library District, which has two main and nine branch libraries. All the branch libraries would be closed after the first year of tax cuts, he said, and the main libraries would also be closed after the third year.

Larson reported 77 percent of Denverites who were recently asked, "Do you like the tax cut amendment?" said yes. He later noted that an even higher proportion, 82 percent, was reported in support of Amendment 24.

Although it is not part of Amendment 21 as drafted, Larson said the measure’s supporters assume the state will make up for declining revenues in the special districts.

In addition to conflicting with TABOR requirements that cap spending, he said this would shift control of local issues to the state and, ultimately, would add more demands to the state’s already limited ability to fund programs. The effect, he said, is that "there will be zero growth after four years in Colorado."

"If the district I represent votes for Amendment 21, you can find yourself a new representative," Larson promised.

Both initiatives got on the ballot, according to Larson, through the efforts of hired canvassers from outside Colorado who were paid 40 cents for each signature on a petition.

The impetus for Amendment 24 came, he said, when the legislature was unable to find a comprehensive solution to Colorado’s growth problems. He said ballot issues should have to be approved by a two-thirds majority, rather than the simple majority required now.

Amendment 24 would be "an abrogation of personal property rights," Larson said.

Though "90 percent of the growth in Colorado is within 15 miles of I-25," he said, and Denver voters tell him, "It’s going to reduce the I-25 congestion," Larson described it as a "one-size-fits-all" approach that unfairly, and expensively, affects the whole state.

Amendment 24, which is 5 1/2 single-spaced pages long, is promoted by Coloradans for Responsible Growth, a coalition that includes the Sierra Club, nature photographer John Fielder, Western Colorado Congress, Colorado Environ-mental Coalition and CoPIRG. The stated purpose is "to require citizen management of growth, by providing voters with information concerning growth impacts, by providing voters with control over growth areas in their communities, and by requiring coordination with respect to proposed growth areas."

According to many at the forum, the devil is in the details.

Communities of different sizes are treated differently by the amendment. Those under 25,000 in population, such as Montezuma County, could vote to not comply with the amendment’s planning mandates for four years, at the end of which time another vote would be required. If the deferral failed to pass, or if the county’s population exceeded 25,000, the county and all its municipalities over 1,000 in population would be required to prepare Growth Area Maps.

Growth Area Maps will have to identify specific proposed developments by their scope and nature, expected timeframes, and the arrangements that will be made for utilities and other infrastructure. Each GAM, plus subsequent changes (new developments) will have to receive voter approval in an election within the town, city or county affected.

The concerns voiced at the forum included:

• Cost to taxpayers for doing the planning, estimated by the state’s Department of Local Affairs to be at least $60 million.

• Delays, with each proposed development hanging on voter approval at an election.

• Loss of owner control over private property. "This is a taking," said Tozer.

Archie Hanson, developer of Indian Camp Ranches west of Cortez, accused Amendment 24’s supporters of undercutting local competency.

Several participants said constitutional amendments are a heavy-handed way of dealing with issues that affect different parts of the state differently.