- rich mcfadden Why wouldn't I vote YES on all three? Let's see, reductions ...
- rich mcfadden Re: Main St dream may be clouded by economy editorial on 9/1...
- LB Low-income housing brings crime. The subsidy is not the big...
- Ronald Looks great, I hope more people will review and evaluate the...
- Ron Hopwood The tabor law was put in effect to support the taxpayer from...
Drawing the Legal Line in the Sand
There is no doubt that Colorado state initiatives for Amendment 60, Amendment 61 and Proposition 101 on this November’s ballot will have huge ramifications either way for the City of Loveland. If they pass, they will result in severe service cuts for Loveland residents. If they fail, they may place a huge wedge in between the City of Loveland and its taxpayers.
On the surface, the three initiatives aim to close legal loopholes in TABOR, but there are many reports that the initiatives will have dire unintended consequences. Calling a ‘tax’ a ‘fee’, intergovernmental loans and unfair competition by public entities are the apparent catalysts for the initiatives.
Loveland City Council has been very vocal in directing City Staff to look into the law and make sure that they are legally doing whatever they can to fight these initiatives without crossing the line. This is proven by the City Manager’s direction to City departments to come up with ideas for a 20% budget reduction for next year, even though Proposition 101 will not fully take effect for 4 years, meaning the projected 20% reductions won’t be required until 2014. These potential ‘budgets’ will surely be released in the coming months as a scare tactic, but if reports are correct – the warnings should be taken seriously.
“Darned if they do, darned if they don’t.”
Whether City Council directs City Staff to use taxpayer money to fight these initiatives in the name of not cutting City service levels, or letting these initiatives fail in the name of following the original intent of the written law – City Council will surely make some from both sides of the aisle mad. Unfortunately, as vocal as they have been for fighting these initiatives, they haven’t been as vocal about finding out what can be done at the local level to follow the intent of the law and still keep service levels at an expected level.
In the end, there will hopefully be some common ground between service levels and being good stewards to the voter, but with a single mindset on the issue, we may all end up losing more than we should.
How did we come up with a 20% reduction? Even after full implementation, 10 or more years, not the falsely stated 4 years, the reduction would be no more than 1-2%. These are rate cuts not revenue cuts. The numbers are near impossible to pinpoint as they require growth rates and future revenue to calculate accurately.
This is all scare tactics because government does not want a 1 cent cut, 1 dollar cut or 100 dollar cut. Their only purpose is to enlarge themselves never concerning themselves with efficiency.
I question the author’s ability to be objective. The author does work in the heavy equipment industry. An industry that is famous for living off the taxpayer.
Noah, Let’s start with the point about my objectivity. I posted a little about myself on Lovelandpolitics.com, simply to tell a little bit about my experience and why I became interested in City business. If you knew who I work for, the type of work we do, what my position is and how I get compensated, you would find out quickly my ‘interest’ in City business has nothing to do with my job. I’m sure as this project progresses some of that information might come out.
I will try to do my best to be objective, but keep in mind I will still be choosing what topics I write about and which side of the fence will be reported. I felt this story was pretty good, but if you look at the $50,000 story I’m clearly not reporting on how Downtown will benefit, the train of thought of past City Councils that came up with the grant program, or why this program is ‘such a good deal’ for all of us – my goal is to inform people enough that they become interested and gather their own information to fill in the details. The report is truthful, but by no means 100% unbiased, I caution all readers that no reporting is 100% objective – there will always be a side not reported on.
Stereotyping me because of what industry I work in is just as bad as you stereotyping the ‘purpose’ of government, both are. . . well, stereotypes.
The 20% reduction comes from the City of Loveland – I’ll have to look back at my notes, but I believe I first heard it from John Duval during a Council Study Session in June. The 20% figure was also given to the individual departments from the City Manager’s office – along with the four-year time frame. Again, objectivity issues based on the source of where my information comes from.
Thanks for your comment and if you have additional information about 60, 61, 101 please feel free to post it.
The tabor law was put in effect to support the taxpayer from government wasteful spending. I agree with Amendment 60,61 and proposition 101. Again they are in effect for protection of the taxpayer. If revenue is truly needed the taxpayer will support it with their vote. Ron
Why wouldn’t I vote YES on all three? Let’s see, reductions in property taxes, state payroll tax and vehicle fees and registration. Yippee! The public sector and teachers union will propagate falsehoods to squash these three(Ugly 3)to protect their own at taxpayers expense. Truly deplorable. Gov’t only grows and these three keeps Big Gov’t in check as they go around TABOR. Vote YES!