Approximately 60 people showed up at a Monday evening seminar to hear public officials and private citizens warn about the dangers of amendments 21 and 24.

Barb Wilkinson, former director of communications for the Colorado Livestock Association and now representing Coloradans for Responsible Reform, told the crowd that there was no question that Colorado needs to address growth, but Amendment 24 clearly was not the right answer.

"This amendment is a one-size-fits-all solution. Everybody’s treated the same. It doesn’t matter if you’re in Montezuma, Dolores, or Douglas County," she said.

Amendment 24, known as "The Responsible Growth Initiative," would change Colorado’s constitution and require all the state’s counties to conform to a zoning system that forces city and county governments to identify areas of new development on a map.

County and city governments must obtain voter approval for those growth areas, which are required to have central sewer and water. If the growth areas are denied, then no development can take place there, and new maps will be made.

Melanie Layton, Colorado Farm Bureau’s state affairs director, said that there were several problems with the amendment. She said it would take away local control of growth, infringe on private property rights, reduce land values, accelerate water sales, impair the business climate, and reduce affordable housing.

"We think this is very radical," Layton said. "It’s untested, and it hasn’t been done in any other state. The more you know about Amendment 24, the less you like it. It sounds good in theory, but once you understand it, it’s really a hand grenade ready to go off."

A version of Amendment 24 has also been put on ballots in Arizona, and has the backing of national environmental organizations. Local control was a primary issue for the speakers.

"I don’t like the idea of folks in the Denver area telling the folks in Montezuma County what to do down here," said Tom Compton, president of the Colorado Cattleman’s Association.

"If you want to build an agricultural supply house, every one of them would have to be a mile apart.

"That doesn’t seem like a sprawl-stopper to me."

Wilkinson said they have questioned the authors of the amendment about the meaning of certain terms and definitions, but haven’t been able to get a clear answer.

One thing Wilkinson is certain of, however, is that if Amendment 24 passes, "this is going to be tied up in court for a long time."

Archie Hanson, a local developer, agreed and said that one of the amendment’s clear faults is that it is confusing and undefined. Each sentence will have to be interpreted by a judge.

"The judge is your planning commissioner," he said. "The judge decides what that sentence means."

The Montezuma County Commission is asking voters if they want to opt out of the requirements set forth in the so-called controlled-growth amendment.

If voters agree, the county would be exempt from the Amendment 24 rules until the county population reached 25,000, at which point the regulations governing voter-approved growth maps for development would stand, assuming the initiative passes.

Kent Lindsay, a Montezuma County commissioner, was asked whether the county would consider ignoring the amendment if it passed.

Lindsay said the commissioners are certain that the amendment won’t pass in Montezuma County, but feared what would happen in the big 12 counties.

Lindsay said that if it does pass, the county may not be able to comply with the terms of the amendment. "What are they going to do, repossess the county?" he asked the crowd.

Kay Alexander, state representative for House District 58, told the group that the state’s growth legislation had passed the house last session, but failed to pass the senate.

"Give us another opportunity to try and address the problem. Let us do it with input from you," said Alexander.

Alexander warned that if the amendment passes it would be very hard to undo.

"It’s much easier to get something in to change to constitution than to get it out," said Alexander. "This is going to be extremely expensive, and it’s going to be an attorney’s heaven."

Mark Larson, state representative for District 59, made his case against Amendment 21, which would reduce each special-district tax bill by $25 for every taxpayer every year — $25 each off fire-protection, sanitation, and mosquito-district bill the first year, $50 the second year, and so on.

Although the measure’s author, Douglas Bruce, claims that the state would fund special districts from state taxes rather than local, Larson said that the state Legislature cannot afford to backfill the taxes because of Colorado’s tax structure.

Bruce is a Colorado Springs lawyer who was a principal backer of the 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR Amendment.

The Colorado Farm Bureau supported the TABOR initiative, but is not supporting Amendment 21.

"Farm Bureau supports reasonable tax cuts. We do not support reckless tax cuts that would bankrupt our local services," said Layton.

Alexander also voiced her opposition to the amendment. "This will impact quality of life here in Colorado, something that I think we’re all very proud of."

Terry Marsden, president of the board of trustees of the Mancos Public Library, said that the Mancos library would have to shut its doors if the amendment passes.

"That’s just one little library, in one little town, that has worked real, real hard, and in one year we’ll be gone," said Marsden.

Each speaker urged the crowd to lobby against the amendments.