2018 Ballot Guide | Chrisland 10/16/18

By October 16, 2018News

 

Chrisland Real Estate Companies examined key non-partisan ballot issues that hold meaningful impacts to Northern Colorado’s  quality of life and economic vitality.  We offer this brief guide for your review and encourage all to exercise your right to vote.


YES on Proposition 109
“Fix our Damn Roads”

Proposition 109 would utilize existing tax dollars and inject over $2 billion one time net new dollars into the state highway system (no local or multi-transit dollars) by issuing bonds.  The passage would commit to securing these bonds with $150 million annually from the general fund (which has been increasing due to increasing state revenue from a growing economy).  This viable measure will address traffic problems in the state and bring some funding up north to Interstate 25 on an interim basis.  As level of funding appears insufficient to address more long term and a broader transportation system, Chrisland is also advocating for the passage of Proposition 110.

Supporters: Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, Independence Institute, Colorado Concern, and Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers (R).


YES on Proposition 110
“Let’s Go Colorado”

While helpful, Proposition 109 does not raise enough funding to adequately address the transportation infrastructure needs of Colorado.  The growth of our state, lack of meaningful new revenue sources for transportation, and significant and overdue infrastructure needs make us supporters of this relatively modest sales tax increase (0.62%), over the next 20 years, which can be leveraged into approximately $7 billion in funding for both state highways and local transportation, including multi-modal transit. New and well-maintained transportation infrastructure is critical to maintaining Colorado’s quality of life and economic growth.  Proposition 110 would increase unincorporated Larimer County sales tax rate by approximately 18% and increase City of Greeley sales tax rate by approximately 9%, but these increases need to be considered along side the fact that it has been nearly three decades since Colorado last changed how it funds transportation improvements, and increases in fuel efficiency has decreased Colorado’s gas tax revenue for transportation improvements.

Supporters: The Denver Post, Colorado Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, and Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce.


YES on Amendments Y and Z
Independent Commission for Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting Amendments

Y & Z were created in partnership by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents so that the voters choose the politicians, instead of the politicians choosing the voters. These will make gerrymandering illegal and allow all voters to be heard, a process that will also bring forth Colorado’s best leaders.

Supporters: The Denver Post, Colorado Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, and Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce.


YES on Larimer County Ballot Issue 1A
Mental Health Matters Sales Tax Increase

Ballot Issue 1A would add 0.25% to sales tax (25 cents per $100 spent) over a 20-year period, to fund the expansion of mental and behavioral health services and development of a regional behavioral health facility to provide coordinated care and crisis services, in Larimer County. Some mental and behavioral health services already exist in Larimer County, but advocates say they are either underfunded or unable to meet demands, while other services, don’t exist at all in Larimer County.

Supporters: Fort Collins City Council, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, and The Larimer County Board of Commissioners.


NO on Proposition 112
Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative

Broadly opposed by both Democrats and Republicans including Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and former Gov. Bill Owens (R).  Proposition 112 is effectively a ban on oil and gas in disguise.  According to a recent economic study, the estimated loss to the state GDP could reach $26 Billion annually and cost Colorado more than 147,000 jobs.

Opponents: Gubernatorial Candidate Jared Polis (D), Gubernatorial Candidate Walker Stapleton (R), Denver Mayor Michael Hancock (D), Greeley Mayor John Gates (R), Colorado Women’s Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Council of Colorado, Colorado Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, Greeley Chamber of Commerce, and Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance.


NO on Amendment 74
Just Compensation for Reduction in Fair Market Value by Government Law or Regulation (The “Takings” Initiative)

Amendment 74, opposed by a broad, bipartisan coalition, would require property owners to be compensated for any reduction in fair market property value caused by the application of any government law or regulation.  It is filled with many unintended consequences harmful to taxpayers and detrimental to the well-being of Colorado’s economy.  Municipal governments would be responsible for paying any fees along with damage associated with litigation, which could lead to municipal governments to cut spending and/or increase taxation or fees on Colorado’s taxpayers.  Amendment 74 was filed in response to the proposed setback requirements for new oil and gas development, including fracking, in the State of Colorado (Proposition 112).  Vote no on Amendment 74 and Proposition 112.

Opponents: Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers (R), The Denver Post, Colorado Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, and Colorado Competitive Council (C3).


NO on Amendment 73
Establish Income Tax Brackets and Raise Taxes for Education Initiative

We support well-funded education but, this Colorado Constitutional Amendment goes too far and is too detrimental to business with a 30% increase in the State’s corporate tax rate and a new graduated income tax for Coloradans that increases State Income Taxes by 8% to 78%, depending upon your tax bracket.  The ballot language is deceptive and grossly misrepresents the percentage of taxes increased.  Amendment 73 is a huge tax increase without spending accountability.  Chrisland believes that less drastic measures are in order and that this is not the solution.

The Denver Post said, “It’s with a heavy heart that we urge Coloradans to vote no on Amendment 73. Colorado schools are underfunded and there was a time, not-so-long ago, that we supported a similar income tax increase to help rescue our lagging K-12 education system. But times have changed. Colorado’s economy is booming. And the Trump tax cuts will actually mean an increase in Colorado income tax revenue. Between 2017 and 2020, general fund revenue is expected to grow by more than $1.7 billion (even accounting for the money that will be given back to taxpayers under TABOR revenue caps). We’re not so naïve as to expect that all of that money will go to better fund our schools, but we would hope that Colorado lawmakers would do the right thing and dedicate the lion’s share to increasing K-12 education funding.”

Opponents: The Denver Post, Colorado Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Farm Bureau, and Associated General Contractors.

Join the discussion 6 Comments

  • Outstanding summary and priceless for those who vote, but don’t have time to educate themselves on every issue.

  • Jason Johnston says:

    Should we also fund all health care with taxes or just mental health care with taxes…..and interesting dichotomy. I am opposed.

  • Myron L. Treber says:

    Spot on!

  • Matt Rankin says:

    Well done and thank you for your timely and well written summation.

  • Stan Everitt says:

    74 is a stealth no-growth Amendment. As most real estate professionals know, most objectors to any project will claim financial devaluation if a project is approved (an action by a government entity). Proving the negative of this claim would be difficult, costly and time consuming. This would inevitably become the norm for most residential, mixed use, commercial or industrial projects. Claims of financial harm or devaluations would become a strong no-growth tool that would intimidate jurisdictions into denying projects. It doesn’t seem unintentional to me; just another economic hit on development.

  • Bob Torson says:

    Thanks. How about some thoughts on the constitutional amendments.

Leave a Reply