U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 28, 2010 07:50 PM UTC

Cory Gardner Shafts Rural Voters--Again?

  • 9 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Last Tuesday, we recapped some drama on the floor of the Colorado House the prior week, related to CD-4 candidate Cory Gardner and a vote to cut the state Agriculture Department. To briefly summarize, Republicans proposed a series of large cuts to most state departments instead of the specific priority-based cuts proposed by Democrats. All of their amendments failed, but not before the cut to the Agriculture Department became a political landmine, ultimately prevented only by a key vote from House Minority Leader Mike May to preserve the department’s funding.

There are allegations that Democrats “set up” Gardner to cast this vote against the Agriculture Department, which would logically be used against him later as a vote against the eastern plains farmers he’d like to represent in Congress–but after watching Minority Leader May (above) basically implore fellow Republicans to change their votes so as not to subject the Ag Department to a by-then singular cut, you can’t say Gardner wasn’t warned. Despite everything short of May walking over to Gardner and saying ‘change your vote, you tonedeaf moron,’ Gardner stuck to his vote to cut the Ag Department–responding to criticism by saying rather lamely “I believe we need to cut spending, even if it means starting in your back yard.”

So that didn’t go really well for Cory Gardner on the whole, but another vote by Gardner recently we think might have been even worse. There’s a large construction project in Aurora at the intersection of E-470 and I-70, and the developers were able to arrange preferential inclusion of agricultural land into an “urban renewal authority” with the city of Aurora: this was reportedly a deal whereby the developers would build a school for Aurora in exchange for this inclusion, estimated to be worth $60 million or more in tax savings.

Got that? A $60 million property tax break by artificially declaring farmland on the outskirts of Aurora an “urban renewal” area–in exchange for a school that will have to be subsidized by the rest of the state’s property taxes to operate. In essence, rural school districts would end up paying for this new Aurora school by backfilling the property tax revenue that would otherwise have. One of those who testified against letting this happen was former state Sen. Steve Johnson (R), now a Larimer County commissioner. A bad and abusive deal that, in particular, rural Colorado representatives would not hesitate to oppose, right?

Wrong. Cory Gardner not only voted against the bill (HB10-1107) that would have prevented this kind of fudging, he even voted against the “safety clause” that would have put the law into effect in time to affect this development in Aurora. We’ve not heard the explanation from Gardner yet for this vote, but we hope he comes up with something better for his rural constituents than “Aurora needed the money more than you do.”

Bottom line? We expected Cory Gardner to be a little smarter about putting himself into politically difficult situations this session than he has been. As a candidate for Congress, Gardner should have realized that his votes in the Colorado House would be subjected to more scrutiny than they have been in the past. Unfortunately for Gardner, he’s chugging ahead with the Republican Study Committee playbook he’s always used, making symbolic, politically counterproductive votes with seemingly little regard for the consequences for his congressional campaign. It’s odd because normally, one tries to do the opposite in that situation.

Democrats, meanwhile, are taking detailed notes.

Tweet
Share

Comments

9 thoughts on “Cory Gardner Shafts Rural Voters–Again?”

  3. will not like the vote, but they will like the rationale.  It will give Cory a great deal of “street cred” with the way he has packaged the vote.  

  4. That screams of the kind of nuancing voters are sick of.  We’ve heard Cory talk passionately on the campaign trail of how he wakes every morning worrying about whether his six year old daughter will grow up and want to stay in his rural town of Yuma.  What exactly is his vision for his eastern plains?  The state ag budget is 1/1000 of the state budget.  Yes, I do have the correct number of zero’s; ag has become a rounding error in the state budget drama.

    His concern over his daughters return to small town Colorado is inconsistent with his votes.  With the exception of counties like Logan and Prowers [who are benefitting from the development of their wind resources], the majority of the very small communities across the plains are on the verge of  collapse.  Ag is a critical component to this state.  Let’s give it the appropriate resources it needs to keep our food safe and to maintain proper oversight of the states food/ag operations.  

    1. that Colorado’s producers are incompetent at what they do?  Are you saying that our producers wouldn’t produce the best in quality products if they didn’t have the Colorado Department of Ag fully funded?  It looks as if you could use a little packaging of your own message.  

      Cory lives in Yuma and grew up on the Eastern Plains.  I’d take his vision over your “outside looking in” scenario any day.  

      1. Just where did I say that producers are incompetent?  I’d put the mountain of corn I’ve grown up against your antpile anyday.  The Department of Ag provides critical functions in food safety, oversight, etc.  Those of us who live on the plains put on our big boy pants every morning and realize Commissioner Stulp & Co. are doing a great job and don’t see the Department as the enemy.

        1. And where did I say that they were the enemy.  I simply want to know if you feel that Colorado’s farmers and ranchers cannot effectively produce the best products without the Dept. of Ag being fully funded?  Do you not have any faith in your own abilities to grow corn without Commissioner Stulp?  

          I’m on a 6th generation farm and ranch.  We do just fine without Commissioner Stulp.  As a matter of fact they could cut his position while they are cutting, and I’m still going to go out there and do what I need to do.

          1. we just as well de-fund the county sheriff’s department and the state patrol because the vast majority of people are good, law-abiding citizens.  

            This is about more than corn production.  And given that you’re a sixth-generation guy yourself you probably also know the Department’s budget amounts to 1/1000 of the state budget…we’re become a mere rounding error in this process.  The legislation is question [and Cory’s vote] was about singling out the Dept. of Ag for a cut that no one else would have been subjected to.  Many thanks to Minority Leader May for standing up for us.  

            And yes, I share your belief the vast majority of producers do the right thing each and every day …. but that’s a very different discussion than the role of the Ag Department and how it oversees a myriad of activities that collectively deliver the safest food on the planet to this state’s residents each and every day.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

87 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!