Vote no on 21

Vote no on 21
Bruce's latest folly would destroy districts we all need

Oct. 12, 2000

Proposed amendment 21 on next month’s ballot is so devastatingly bad that thus far no voice has been heard speaking in its favor except that of its author, Douglas Bruce.

And among those who know anything at all about the workings of government, Bruce’s reputation is sufficiently bad to ensure an almost automatic negative reaction.

Right at the start we say: vote "no" on #21.

This latest onslaught upon representative government proposes a tax cut for each taxpayer of $25, increased annually by $25, in each tax bill itemized on his statement.

It applies to each state and local tax and franchise charge on each monthly utility bill as well, plus government sales tax upon automobiles, property and income taxes.

Across the state and at home, we depend upon our special districts. There are 2,100 of them in Colorado, with property taxes supporting half of them. This measure would eliminate half of the library districts the first year.

We have 114 volunteer fire districts; 70 of them would be gone in four years. There are mosquito districts, water districts, recreation districts, districts in support of the arts. All would be doomed, but the smallest ones — like ours in southwest Colorado — would go first.

Bruce has said the state will make up the difference but Gov. Bill Owens has said it won’t. The bill does not provide for the state to replace the difference. In addition, it makes sense for those who benefit from the services to pay the bill, rather than funneling all the funding through Denver.

According to the Legislative Council, if the bill passes, "local government taxes will be cut by nearly $4 billion during the first five years, reducing or eliminating tax revenues for services such as fire protection, law enforcement, roads and libraries.

"State revenues will be cut by an estimated $2 billion during the same period, reducing money available for highways, prisons, education and other state programs...."

See why we urge a "no" vote?