Notable Links

Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Amendment 52 - Lock in I-70 Transportation Funding

by: DavidThi808

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:02:21 AM MDT

An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the allocation of revenues from the state severance tax imposed on minerals and mineral fuels other than oil shale that are extracted in the state, and, in connection therewith, for fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2008, requiring half of the revenues to be credited to the local government severance tax fund and the remaining revenues to be credited first to the severance tax trust fund until an annually calculated limit is reached and then to a new Colorado transportation trust fund, which may be used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor.

Further info at Colorado Ballot - The Severance Tax - Transportation Initiative

DavidThi808 :: Amendment 52 - Lock in I-70 Transportation Funding

Arguments Against
Amendment 52 diverts money that would help meet Colorado's rapidly growing water demand and maintain its aging water supply system. Half of the money shifted to highway projects under this measure would be available under current law to provide loans and grants for water projects, water conservation, and other programs. A recent study indicated that current and planned water supply projects are likely to meet about 80 percent of the estimated new demand between 2004 and 2030. By shifting over $100 million in the next four years from water projects to transportation projects, Amendment 52 hurts the state's ability to meet long-term water supply needs.

Amendment 52 could politicize funding for transportation projects. To prevent political considerations from influencing the allocation of transportation money, an independent commission develops a statewide transportation plan that identifies, prioritizes, and selects transportation projects for funding. Giving budgeting authority for some of the money to the state legislature could result in the legislature selecting transportation projects based on political considerations.

Arguments For
Amendment 52 creates a permanent revenue stream for highway projects, with emphasis on congestion relief for I-70. I-70 is a key transportation corridor for both Colorado residents and visitors to the state. The highway supports both intra- and interstate commerce, provides access to key ski and recreational areas, and is an important commuter route.

Vote No
This is another case of a special interest group trying to do an end-run around the legislature and create a specific funding stream targeted directly at their needs. The true purpose of this bill is to provide funds for traffic mitigation on I-70 in the mountains. And to have this funding trump all other transportation and other needs in the state.

What's sad in this particular case is the primary sponsors are legislators. Guys, your job is to sell your funding requests to your peers, not to do an end run around the body you are a member of. You three should be ashamed of yourselves.

Ballotpedia
If you want to make Ballotpedia a more evenhanded discussion of this initiative click here register, and you can then edit the page.

Poll

My vote on 52

Yes
No
Not sure

Results

Tags: amendment 52, severence tax, (All Tags)

Share this post:

Amendment 52 - Lock in I-70 Transportation Funding | 25 comments

This is an easy one

Anything that encourages more highway construction at the expense of all other modes of transit gets an automatic "no" from me.

"Have a Bobby bar! My dad made them." --Jon Huntsman Jr.

by: sxp151 @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 14:13:45 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Money and Taxes

do not belong in the Colorado Constitution. These should be in the General Assembly.

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. Edmund Burke

10/26/11 Colorado Ex-Pat; S/V Sisu Catalina 30

by: Pam Bennett @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 14:25:27 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

TABOR means

That taxes have to be in the Colorado Constitution...

by: adam.kretz @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:53:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Then how is 58 statuatory?

I realize that TABOR makes things very convoluted but why the one and not the other?

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 16:03:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

58 is statutory

because tabor only requires a vote of the people t6o hike taxes, which it does. See my other note about why, if they both pass, the tax increase of 58 goes to highways because 52 is a constitutional mandate. What a mess.

by: bob ewegen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 16:36:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Not in this case. Kretz

This is not a tax incrrease, it is a reallocation of existing revenue. It absolutely could, and should, have been done by the general Assembly, as Senate Bill 1 did.

by: bob ewegen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 16:33:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

This is true

As is David's point that tax changes could be put to statutory revision instead of into the Constitution. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

I was simply taking issue with the idea that Colorado's FUBAR constitution currently often forces tax changes by a vote rather than by the legislature.

by: adam.kretz @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 20:44:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What a bad idea

I support neither severance tax diversion, nor do I particularly buy the arguments of the drilling and mining industry. This measure is has less to do with I-70 than it does having to do with being a campaign strategy to siphon votes away from the ill-conceived Ritter proposal. The strategy is based on the assumption that if there are 2 competing ballot issues, they both are likely to fail.

I would support an increase in the severance tax that is part of a better structured distribution to impacted local communities and a relaignment of local taxes.

by: abraham @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 14:28:55 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

52/58 Conflict?

If both 52 and 58 pass, what happens? Anyway, I tend to agree sxp, I don't want transportation funding that keeps us stuck in the car-first transportation model.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

by: Bondo @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:08:39 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

NO on 58 and 62!

by: Libertad @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:53:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Ummm

There is no 62.

Feel free to vote NO on it though, just for kicks.

by: adam.kretz @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:56:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I'm going to vote FOR it

just to see what happens.

by: RedGreen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 16:24:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yes on A-62

It adds a new 10% tax on food & other essentials only, to provide an additional tax break for our Oil & Gas companies who desperately need the money - to buy additional hookers & blow for the Department of the Interior employees.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:53:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Don't forget

It increases welfare for crack addicts, and it mandates forced abortions for all Colorado citizens.

by: redstateblues @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:54:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is a difference of opinion

Penry and 52 supporters argue that since it is a constitutional amendment, and since 58 is only statutory, that 52 would take precedent.

58 supporters argue that conflicting amendments have been resolved in the past by putting the measure with the most "Yes" votes into law.

Most legal professionals think Penry is right, BUT the Colorado Supreme Court has never ruled on this sort of predicament. If both pass, expect a swift run to the SC to finally create some precedent in this area.

by: adam.kretz @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:56:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

IF both pass, accordin g to Penry

the tax does go up, al la 58, but because 52 isz constitutional and 58 satatutory, alal the extra money goes for transportation and not a dime to the uses specified in 58.

by: bob ewegen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 16:35:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

And what

Penry feels no remorse about that? I guess if his pet project gets $321 million extra, he's just doing his civic duty.

by: redstateblues @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 16:39:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I could make an argument to the contrary,

but it's hard to refute the idea that constitution trumps statute. To me, it's a good reason to vote note on 52 regardless of what you do on 58. The danger of 52 is that it takes away existing legislative authority to disburse these funds and locks them into concrete. Just what we need.

by: bob ewegen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:41:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Perhaps

Haven't read them side-by-side, but my guess is that the Constitutional amendment would take precedence where the two are in conflict and the statutory provisions would prevail where the Constitution is silent.

One good thing about this election. We are all getting a great education in Constitutional law.

by: abraham @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:43:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

AThat's a good bet.

The problem is the statutory can prevail by raising the tax, since 52 doesn't address the size of the tax. 52 does specify that increased revenue from the tax, whether by natural growth or presumably by tax increase must go mostly to I-70.
The best thing about this election is that eventually it will be over.

by: bob ewegen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:48:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I think

the asphalt and road paving associations just wet their pants.

by: redstateblues @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:51:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Time to invest in pork futures!

by: bob ewegen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:56:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NO on 52

A-52 is bad for water projects, bad for poor people (LEAP funding is affected), bad for recreationists (zebra mussel eradication monies are affected), and the list goes on. Transportation funding needs to come in a more comprehensive way...and let me remind readers that the three sponsors were opponents of Referendum C & D, the latter of which failed and would have provided billions in transportation dollars.

Do whatever you want on Amendment 58...but Amendment 52 is just a bad idea.

And to answer below, Amendment 58 is statutory and Amendment 52 is consitutional. Likely Amendment 52 would trump 58 on parts that conflict.

by: Busta6 @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:47:09 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Could 52 also lock in oil company discounts?

Amend 58 eliminates tax breaks to Big Oil. In an economic recession that we are sure to have, (thank you, Bush Republicans,) the state will need more financial resources so the tax burden doesn't fall on us regular people or many services go unfunded. What the oil companies don't pay on their taxes, we have to pick up the tab.

Amend 52 is a gift to Big Oil (thank you, Republican Sen. Josh Penry) so they can continue to receive tax credits off their bill.

Voting for 58 and against 52 will make sure Big Oil pays their fair share of taxes.

by: WestSloper @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 16:47:31 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

WestSloper

you have the right way to vote on both issues in my opinion but I don't think 52 would locked in the tax credit if 58 passes. It speaks only to the distribution of funds. Not so incidentally, Rick Reiter, strategist for big oil, boasted that he paid to put 52 on the ballot, basically just to muddy the waters and get folks like us denouncing a change in severance tax.

by: bob ewegen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 20:50:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Amendment 52 - Lock in I-70 Transportation Funding | 25 comments