October 28, 2008 08:23 PM UTC

Amendment 52...could it trump 58 if both pass?

•  
• by: Benjamin_Waters

( – promoted by DavidThi808)

I wrote the piece below the fold for an editorial on the conservative blog Face the State, opposing Amendment 52. For those of you not familiar, Amendment 52 is the CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT being run by Sen. Josh Penry, Rep. Cory Gardner, and Rep. Frank McNulty. Amendment 58 is the STATUTORY measure supported by Gov. Ritter.

Since then Penry’s predecessor, Sen. Ron Teck, has come out against it.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/c…

And former Owens Agriculture Commissioner Don Ament has come out rather strongly against it, saying:

“What the hell are these Johnny-come-lately (lawmakers) doing?” Ament said, of the initiatives authors. “This is not where you do cutesy little partisan tricks; you don’t do that with our constitution.”

http://www.rockymountainnews.c…

I feel Amendment 52 is terrible policy. What do you think?

And what happens if both pass?

Amendment 52 purports to be a down payment on our transportation infrastructure along the I-70 corridor while not raising taxes. While such logic is attractive, it is also much more complicated than that. Amendment 52 is bad public policy that will end up costing Colorado much in the long run.

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is proud to join a broad coalition in opposition to Amendment 52. We are joined in opposition by the Colorado Farm Bureau, Club 20, Colorado Water Congress, Colorado Municipal League, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Jim Isgar, House Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Kathleen Curry, several Joint Budget Committee members, newspapers such as the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, Pueblo Chieftain, and the Durango Herald, and notably, the I-70 Corridor Coalition. What would bring such a broad coalition together? Well to put it simply, Amendment 52 is bad public policy from a planning perspective, from a fiscal perspective, from a constitutional perspective, and from a political perspective.

From a planning perspective it undercuts the $2.7 billion needed to keep up with just 80% of our state’s water needs by 2030 as identified in the Statewide Water Supply Initiative. By robbing Peter to pay Paul and taking money that would have otherwise have gone to water projects and laundering it over to transportation, Amendment 52 would cripple water planning efforts while giving a pittance to our transportation needs. It also undercuts the statewide transportation planning process through rigid constitutional mandates.

From a fiscal perspective the amendment cuts funding to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from current projections of $362 million over a four year period under current statute to $228 million under constitutional edict. This is a cut in funding that can ill afford a decrease. From a constitutional perspective this measure puts an earmark in the state constitution, already grappling with the unintended consequences of TABOR and Amendment 23.

Finally from a political perspective Amendment 52 is nothing less than a cynical attempt to confuse voters over another severance tax measure, Amendment 58. Regardless of what you feel about Amendment 58, the so-called “Better Roads Now” constitutional amendment is bad for the state and diverts the focus from a statewide transportation solution. Referendum D failed by less that two-points in 2005. This was the last effort at a statewide solution to our transportation funding woes. Our elected representatives would be well advised to start again and keep their mitts off Colorado’s water.