Amendments 60 & 61, Proposition 101 (Victor, Montezuma: real estate, vehicle registration, crime)

[Idunn]

If this might be considered political, it pertains directly to Colorado and her future. I'm not entirely clear on these proposed changes, thus welcoming an informed debate on the pros and cons of this possible change in Colorado law, and what it will mean for the future life of all citizens.

Per Proposition 101, it seems designed to limit the revenue Colorado might gain from a variety of sources, such as increased vehicle registration taxes. According to one source revenue to Colorado would be decreased by at least $1.2 billion, although I'm unsure if this would be in existing revenue or that they hope to gain:
Proposition 101: Colorado Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecom*Taxes | Ballot Measures | Montezuma County Democrats (http://www.montezumadems.org/ballot/proposition-101-colorado-motor-vehicle-income-and-telecom-taxes - broken link)

In these difficult economic times many states and municipalities are becoming creative in new ways to tax in an attempt to compensate for the loss of other tax revenue, such as income taxes for businesses and individuals. Although one might question to what extent their need for revenue has increased these last decades, how it is spent, and to what degree it should continue. According to some passage of this law would result in the loss of 70,000 jobs (1). But while the notion of jobs always seem sacrosanct, how many actually question what that means? I've conjectured previously that Colorado's sustainable population might be more on the order of 800,000 souls, versus the 5,000,000 extant, projected to double to 10,000,000 by 2050. Or for that matter that in the next few decades more than half of Colorado's counties are expected to be unable to meet water demands. Thus one might question in which direction this state is headed, and if that is advisable. If but more 'jobs' and business as usual, then one might expect an ever increasing number of problems.

As said, however, I remain unsure how these specific proposals would influence life here. Anyone, particularly those that know something, or willing to learn, wish to comment?


Reference
1. 60,61, 101
Home - No on 60, 61 and 101

[davidv]

I will be the first to comment.

These proposals were created by groups who subscribe to the "starve the beast" philosophy of government. Their intent is to cut funding to the government so that the government would be forced to cut programs and agencies. Their strategy is to portray the government as a bloated entity that could survive if it became more streamlined. A related idea is that the government should privatize many of its functions to save money.

The $1.2 billion shortfall is from the existing budget, not the projected growth. By capping the fees at $10 per vehicle, it does not allow any adjustments for inflation. In 10 years, the fees will still be $10.

Such a shortfall will have major implications:
Much of the money is used for road repair. Either the roads will deteriorate greatly, or the local areas will be forced to vote in new taxes to make up the shortfall. Having 65 county govts doing what 1 state govt was previously doing. This will bring great inefficiency and mean that there will be 65 different plans instead of 1 master plan.

Some of the money is used for schools. Local school districts would be forced to make up the revenue, let buildings fall into disrepair, layoff teachers, and greatly increase class sizes OR make up the revenue locally (though limits mandated by law will not allow some areas increase revenue).

There would be loss of jobs through the loss of state jobs, loss of construction jobs for state projects, etc. Programs would be cut and there would be less help for the poor and homeless. They won't all leave, they will have a greater presence on the streets. Crime would increase as more poor are created and police budgets are cut. Some state universities and colleges would be forced to close. Others would raise their tuitions out of reach for average Coloradans.

While you may think that the state can sustainably hold only 16% of its current population, getting to that number would be a financial catastrophe. Companies would leave the state in droves not having enough workers to fill their jobs. Houses would be abandoned and boarded up. Housing prices would tank. All mortgage owners would be upside down as prices hit the floor. Think Detroit on a statewide level.

[jazzlover]

As is usual for Colorado politics, these propositions are the wrong solutions to the right problem. What they will effectively do is strangle tax revenues in Colorado, particularly at the levels of government closest and most responsive to the electorate--local and county government. Worse yet, they are constructed to make those local and county entities essentially go beg to the state for (nonexistent) revenues to make up the shortfall. Everyone, especially rural Colorado residents, should be plenty concerned about that.

Since much of the state and local budgets are required to fund federally required entitlements, etc. (read: unfunded mandates), any revenue cuts will fall upon non-federally mandated programs--essential little local things like law enforcement, ambulance services, local road maintenance, etc.

Unfortunately, the electorate may pass these hare-brained amendments (which, because they are Constitutional Amendments, are very difficult to undo) because of their frustration with ever-increasing fees and taxes. What the public can't seem to get through their thick skulls, though, is that many of those increased fees and taxes in Colorado are the result of POPULATION GROWTH and its associated development in this state not being made to pay its own way. For years upon years, the developers have privatized their profits and socialized the costs upon the taxpayers--and Colorado taxpayers are getting sick of paying for it.

In addition, Colorado's property tax code is Constitutionally biased in favor of residential property and against commercial and industrial property. So, residential property owners in Colorado enjoy artificially low effective tax rates on their property (one of the lowest effective property tax rates in the US), while commercial and industrial property owners--that would be the people who actually produce things, create jobs, and employ people--get hammered with effective property tax rates about 4 times higher what a residential property owner pays. It is an absolute fact that most residential property owners in Colorado pay less property taxes than their property consumes in services. Is it any surprise, then, that Colorado is overflowing with non-productive McMansions and second homes while the industrial base shrinks? Hell's bells!--the property tax code encourages it. That is the problem that the Amendments should address--instead we've got these pieces of s*** on the ballot that will only make things worse. And a clueless electorate could actually pass the damned things.

We should have a healthy debate about how much government we need in this state, but once that is decided, the public needs to "cowboy up" and be willing to pay for it--instead of voting for stupid amendments that endeavor to either shift the burden to someone else, or duck paying for the government they've asked for, altogether.

[Mike from back east]

What JazzLover said.

We cannot take a meat axe to the revenue side of our governments and expect anything good to happen. That starve the beast attitude will doom us, and I've said many times that TABOR and it's author are the most destructive things in our state.

We must address the expenditure side of the sheet and scrub what it is we are paying for with our tax money, should we even be paying for these line items, are they better done by someone else, are we overpaying for it, can we cut it, is there anything that needs to be added that we're not now doing, etc.

BTW, "scrub" is an old IT term for "system change-request user board" where the need to make changes to a system were determined to be worthwhile or not and action taken as needed.

Jazz is right about the corporate world wanting to privatize the profits and stick us with the costs (socialize the costs). Think "superfund sites," old mine clean up costs, sewage flowing from feed lots, etc.

There's a humorous case in COLO SPGS today, where the city recently passed a law to make developers pay up front for road improvements needed as part of their development efforts. Well, the first case is now on the docket and the developer is whining like a baby about having to pay the $265k for road work, griping how he can't make the deal work, etc, so he wants the taxpayer to eat it for him. Hah!

Our state requires sufficient funds to carry out the duties that are on it's plate to accomplish. The issue is not that amount of taxes we pay, but rather is there too much on the plate and if so, what should come off the plate, then match tax levels to meet those items that are firm requirements. "Starve the beast" is an effort by anti-tax zealots who have overwhelming hatred of government, but their true motives (whatever they might be) are kept to themselves.

My vote this fall will be against more amendments that hamstring the state from doing it's job.

[Ziasforever]

I have a question;

does any governmental agency in Colorado impose impact fees to real estate and land developers?

The City of Santa Fe imposes impact fees on new development but they are a joke. It doesn't curtail building and doesn't really cover the infrastructure costs needed to support it.

I like the idea of making the developers pay for the infrastructure up-front in Mike fbe's post but what about continuing maintenance? Is that covered with collected property taxes?
It takes more the $265,000 to put in a road plus all the other stuff.

[jim9251]

Well.... it seems people want all the services but they don't want to pay for them. People have for so long depended on the government to hold their hand, and spoon feed them I think it will be quite a shock if these pass and all of a sudden people will have to take care of themselves and do without.

Here's a thought, provide BASIC services; police, fire, ambulance, and loose the fluff.

[Idunn]

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies.

Several thoughts. One is this seems reminiscent of that currently transpiring in Arizona, namely a public fed up with a problem and willing to do something, anything to resolve it, even if ill-advised.

Another is that around here the police and elected representatives flat refuse to control the traffic, to do their fiduciary responsibility. Thus I don't have much sympathy for them. Related, in the last several years I've paid particular attention to road construction projects, and can report that in most instances they seem ill-advised, ill-conceived, and wasteful. This pertains not just to Colorado but at least the entire western US. In example, paving over roads that do not need paving, egregiously widening road shoulders that do not require it, and any number of other projects seem best designed to keep these highway contractors in business. Since the federal government pumped a lot of stimulus money into this the level of such things has only increased. I would also add that the end results seldom exhibit excellent craftsmanship. Moreover if plenty of money for such projects, seemingly not enough simply to patch potholes that are directly adjacent.

As far as population is concerned, Ponzi schemes have the same rationale in having to continue or all falls apart. One could, and I will, hypothesize that Colorado and this nation would not presently be in such financial difficulties if we had practiced foresight and restraint per development in decades past. To extend what we have already done will only make it all worse in the end. But I wouldn't end it all in a day. Cutting this states population by 4/5ths overnight would be catastrophic. If it took well over a century to get here, it could take some time to reverse. In what number and semblance of balance people are at last happiest to exist remains to be seen.

This has been a wonderfully green summer. Yet in watching the spread of the effects of the mountain pine beetle, all the more dead and dying trees even in such places as Rocky Mountain National Park, one is reminded that not all is well with our world. Or in mountain rivers befouled that but a few years ago ran pure and clean. Signs that many seem willing to ignore. Proposed amendments such as this may be similar, as signs and indicators. That at minimum our present course should be adjusted in various ways.

Thank you again for the responses. I had little idea what was proposed, and just that much better idea now.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Ziasforever

I have a question; does any governmental agency in Colorado impose impact fees to real estate and land developers?...

The article to which I linked states: ".... a countywide program that requires developers to pay thousands of dollars in transportation improvement fees..."

So it is a set program and is further described in the article as "county officials and counterparts in the private sector came up with the transportation improvement fees, based on the total costs of improvements needed for the development divided by the number of trips that the new businesses are expected to generate. Those trip numbers are determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, said Victoria Chavez, the county’s principal transportation planner, in an interview after the meeting. “We literally take them out of a text book,” she said of the trip numbers....."

So it appears that El Paso County is trying to implement some sort of impact fee, but the first developer to come before the procedural process is pleading to be excused from having to pay, and the program is due for review later this year as per the article: "A committee of county officials, landowners, developers and consultants still working out details of the program. An updated fee program is expected to be submitted to the county commissioners by the end of this year." Uh-oh.

[Muzzle of Bees]

While privatizing state services might seem to be the political solution now. It will haunt every tax paying citizen of your state in the long run. Google both IBM and Texas and Accenture in Texas to see the destruction privatizing can do. Texas began contracting out services about 5 years ago. It has been a windfall for business and a nightmare for the workers and citizens. Texas did cut the Accenture contract that was near 900 million dollars. IBM is under fire currently. The IBM contract is near 900 million dollars as well. That is 1.8 billion dollars that could have been spent much more efficiently. But political contributions don’t come from state workers. The Big corporations contribute huge piles of money to the politicians, which trumps logic. Texas had a stable working system and was receiving awards for its efficient accurate systems before the outsourcing began. Since the outsourcing began Texas has been on corrective action plans from the feds. Fraud has been a problem with these companies who were awarded contracts as well.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Muzzle of Bees

While privatizing state services might seem to be the political solution now. It will haunt every tax paying citizen of your state in the long run. Google both IBM and Texas and Accenture in Texas to see the destruction privatizing can do. Texas began contracting out services about 5 years ago. It has been a windfall for business and a nightmare for the workers and citizens. Texas did cut the Accenture contract that was near 900 million dollars. IBM is under fire currently. The IBM contract is near 900 million dollars as well. That is 1.8 billion dollars that could have been spent much more efficiently. But political contributions don’t come from state workers. The Big corporations contribute huge piles of money to the politicians, which trumps logic. Texas had a stable working system and was receiving awards for its efficient accurate systems before the outsourcing began. Since the outsourcing began Texas has been on corrective action plans from the feds. Fraud has been a problem with these companies who were awarded contracts as well.

Very true. Seen the same form of "false economy" at work when I worked for the Army. These "concepts" come in from the very top (the political level) and become a force of their own which the rank and file sometimes try to stop if it doesn't make sense.

The final few years I worked for Army "privatization" was the rage. Military bases were supposed to turn over their aging, crumbling on-base utility infrastructure (water treatment and distribution, sewer lines, waste water treatment, electric, natural gas, telephone, internet, cable TV, etc) to the local public utility providers, almost all of whom are corporate entities. It followed the specious thinking that private industry can do no wrong and will shower us with marvelous service.

The political types didn't understand that public utility law allows local public utilities to refuse taking over privately-owned infrastructure until the current owner brings it up to the current codes and standards. Few if any Army bases ever transferred on-base utilities to local public utility providers. The cost to Army just to bring their bases up to code/standards was in the billions, which Army did not have, so Army kept ownership and did their own upgrades on a piecemeal basis. After the Reagan defense build-up, Defense budgets began declining in 1987 and such declines accelerated after the USSR dissolved in 1989. Base modernization funds were cut quite a bit, thus by 2003 when I retired, the Army had a $23B backlog of base-operations maintenance requirements.

The modern-era "starve the beast" anti-tax attitudes are wrecking our infrastructures, both for the military and for public highways, railways, and virtually all forms of aging infrastructures.

I also saw the privatization fad in Army's IT services area too. I'll save those stories for another time. Such folly abounds in the USA.