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
October 10, 2018 10:54 AM UTC

Amendment 74: Fatally Flawed

  • 20 Comments
  • by: mikefoote

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

A special interest.
A special interest.

Amendment 74 is one of the most dangerous ballot measures we have seen in Colorado for a long time.  It has largely flown under the radar despite its far-reaching implications, at least compared to the attention paid to several other ballot measures this year.  That is a big mistake.

Amendment 74 would fundamentally change the nature of land use policy and the duties of our local governments.  By inserting eleven words into Article II, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution – “or reduced in fair market value by government law or regulation” – the Amendment would radically upend a century of established property takings law.

Amendment 74 is purportedly sponsored by the Colorado Farm Bureau, which claims current takings laws aren’t fair to property owners.  But not one farmer or rancher, the supposed constituency of the Colorado Farm Bureau, has contributed to the campaign supporting Amendment 74.  Rather, oil and gas companies have made up 99.9% of the $7 million contributed so far.  If passed, it would mean a handful of large corporations managed to buy a piece of our state Constitution.

And, what a purchase it would be.  The oil and gas companies’ campaign contributions would pale in comparison to the litigation and judgments unleashed by the passage of Amendment 74.  Any and every land use decision would be subject to a lawsuit.  Any land owner unhappy with a zoning decision could sue.  Either local governments will stop land use planning altogether (imagine chemical plants in the middle of neighborhoods or gun shops next to schools), or taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars in judgments.

Oregon voters passed a similar version of Amendment 74 by statewide initiative in 2006.  As a result, 7,000 claims totaling $19.5 billion were filed against the state and local governments.  The voters realized their mistake and repealed it just three years later.  If Colorado suffers the same fate, it would be even tougher to call a similar mulligan here.  That’s because the oil and gas industry-funded “Raise the Bar” Amendment 71 two years ago made signature gathering for constitutional amendments (or repeals of those amendments) prohibitively expensive for anyone other than the wealthiest groups or corporations.

When opposition to a ballot measure runs from John Suthers to John Hickenlooper, from Club 20 and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce to the Sierra Club, and from the Grand Junction Sentinel to the Boulder Daily Camera, you know it is fatally flawed.

I’ve dealt with my fair share of half-truths and hidden agendas during my six years at the state legislature, but Amendment 74 takes the cake in both of those categories.  It is a dangerous overreach that would gut environmental protections and eliminate rational land use planning.  Don’t let this amendment sneak into our Constitution.  Spread the word against Amendment 74 like your neighborhood depends on it.

Tweet
Share

Comments

20 thoughts on “Amendment 74: Fatally Flawed”

          2. This is a complicated issue for me.  There are lots of abuses in the system; many of us here are acquainted with someone who used to check in here whose brother picked cotton for the Texas Correctional system for an extended period of time.  His assault on our society? Possession of a small amount of marijuana.  Given we've managed to load our system with men of color, in large part due to our incredibly successful disastrous War on Drugs, it's hard not to call it what it looks like: slavery.  Should we reduce recidivism in the system.  Absolutely.  Does it need to look like the programs in Texas?  No.  Is there a sane space, someplace between programs like those in the Texas cotton fields and the Whole Foods hysteria?  Yes. 

            I'll be a Yes on A.  We need to start/have this discussion. 

            1. I have no doubt that Texas,

              Like Louisiana, has abused its prison system.

              But I have a great deal of doubt that amending Colorado's constitution will clean up things in Texas.

              A's backers haven't identified a single case of a wrong in this state that removing a 141 year-old clause of our constitution will right.

              Not one single case.

              Not one.

              Vote "no" on A, political correctness run amok.

      2. Yes on X.  It's better than sex!

        Seriously, this is a sensible bipartisan measure to make our definition of industrial hemp conform to state and federal law.  Colorado is the number one industrial hemp state and this gives us the legal flexibility to conform with changing statutes that are, at long last, freeing us to produce the same crop George Washington and Henry Clay did.

        1. LOL. Well said, Grasshopper! (and kudos to ever single Coloradan that keeps us on the forefront of this new industry)

          Your words reminded me of the Jack Nicholson quote: "Three things to remember as you get old; Never pass up a bathroom. Never waste a hard-on. And never trust a fart."  

  5. Amendment 74 is a threat by the oil and gas industry against every municipal and county government (among other parties) in the state who might deign to restrict drilling and fracking near their citizens. Mineral rights value.made inaccessable by 112 will be chased as a "taking".

    As I understand it, 74 would give them constitutional standing to sue and be awarded damages.

      1. I caught a video clip on the news this morning featuring a meeting with Stumbleton that apparently happened here in GJ yesterday. The usual suspects were there…including the Mesa County shadow government, Diane Schwenke and David Ludlam. Rose the Pugnacious was also in attendance. Couldn't see who else, but it isn't hard to guess. 

        The GOP candidate was probably here to shore up his financial support from O&G.

        I think they owe him a check for the lie package he delivered at the debate at Colorado Methane University a couple of days ago. They used to pay those guys by the hour, but I think it is at a piece rate in the new economy.

        Anyway…any of your inside sources have any scuttlebutt on that meeting?

         

        1. Not a word. But, then, I've never been tight with the aforementioned suspects.

          I also know our local stations frequently use old B roll, so there's no guarantee the video clip was current.

          Ludlam is the chief flack for CMU now, and I can't figure why Foster would want him at such a meeting.

           

  6. Gosh … head shops and bars next to schools, or pay the penalty.

    I'm betting that at least one of my neighbors would think it would be great to propose a high rise building on their property, a use currently blocked by zoning. I don't get any sense that the amendment would be limited to any NEW changes — and it is clear that a single house is LOTS less valuable than a high rise on the 1.25 acre lot.

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

164 readers online now

Newsletter

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