President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

August 28, 2024 11:33 AM UTC

Denver Chamber Signs On to Conservative Groups' Special Session Demands, Then Tries to Clarify

1 Comments
by: Erik Maulbetsch

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Originally posted at the Colorado Times Recorder

Colorado’s legislature reconvened this week for a special session called for a single purpose: removing Initiatives 50 & 108 from this November’s ballot. The measures, backed by anonymous right-wing donors, would slash taxes so drastically that a bipartisan coalition of dozens of statewide groups wrote a letter to Governor Jared Polis two weeks ago, pleading with him to call the Legislature back to deal with the “significant and very real threat to all communities.”

On Monday, as they returned to the Capitol, legislators received an open letter about the initiatives. This one was from the proponents of 50 & 108, promising to abide by the special session’s proposed legislation, drafts of which had already leaked, by pulling their measures and agreeing not to run any similar ballot measures for the next six years.

In a surprise addition, however, a third group joined the initiatives’ conservative backers, Advance Colorado and Colorado Concern: the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (DMCC).

Property Tax Cut Initiatives 50 & 108 Proponents' Letter — *^{New letterhead just dropped}*

From the letter:

“If the agreed-upon legislation is signed into law, Initiatives 108 and 50 will be withdrawn from the November ballot. Additionally, our organizations will not pursue any ballot measures to reduce assessment rates or cap revenue growth – or bring any other proposals that would reduce property taxes – for at least 6 years, as long as the legislature, executive, or judicial branches do not go back on the provisions of the agreement by raising assessment rates, raising the caps, or changing the non-biased ballot language to opt out of the caps.”

Following the Colorado Times Recorder’s inquiry of DMCC President J.J. Ament as to whether members such as Metro State University and other public institutions were involved in the decision to sign on to the Advance/Concern letter, DMCC released a statement Tuesday saying that it supports the compromise but isn’t taking a position on either initiative.

“We are so encouraged by the potential of a legislative solution that we have not taken positions of support or opposition to initiatives 50 or 108 yet – hoping that a principled compromise this week will make further action unnecessary,” Ament said.

“Yesterday, we also agreed to add our own commitment to that of Advance Colorado and Colorado Concern to not offer any property-tax related ballot measures for at least six years if the legislature passes this compromise and does not act contrary to its purposes.”

The DMCC statement also included a link to news coverage of Ament’s argument for additional tax relief in May at the DMCC’s annual State of the State event. His comment, which came just days after the late-session bipartisan passage of a tax-cut measure that some Republicans supported believing it to be the compromise reached to remove 50 & 108, appeared to characterized the initiatives as “apocalypses.”

“‘If [Senate Bill] 233 represents the tax collectors’ best and final offer and the ballot represents the taxpayers’ best and final offer, then there needs to be, and I think is, space between those utopias and apocalypses,” the Colorado Sun reported Ament as saying at the chamber’s May event.

Among the signatories to the earlier letter calling 50 & 108 a “real threat” are the University of Colorado and Metro State University. The initiatives would hit higher-ed budgets harder than perhaps any other public entities. Both CU President Todd Saliman and MSU President Janine Davidson have been elected to the DMCC board; Saliman was recently re-elected and Davidson’s first term begins Sept. 1.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for CU offered the following statement:

“At the DMCC meeting, President Saliman spoke up with information about the significant pressure 108 and 50 would have on the state budget and higher education funding. This information was presented publicly to the CU Board of Regents. The President argued the chamber to not take a position on 108 and 50 and should instead encourage the convening of a special session to implement a compromise approach that would result in the measures being removed from the ballot. That is what is happening this week. The DMCC did not take a position on 108 and 50. If the DMCC, or any other organization we are involved with, takes a position that is contrary to CU’s position, we make it clear to the organization’s leadership that CU should be excluded from any membership list the organization distributes in support/opposition of the measure.”

An MSU spokesperson provided the following statement on behalf of Davidson:

“We must address the challenges of rising property taxes in a way that doesn’t simply shift the burden to higher education and other public-funded services. We must have a solution that protects the long-term vitality of Colorado and it’s MSU Denver’s perspective that the compromised bill achieves that balance,” the statement said.

“President Davidson appreciates that Advance Colorado, Colorado Concern, DMCC are supporting a responsible legislative solution to the property tax issue to avoid having 108 and 50 on the ballot – initiatives she feels could be catastrophic to higher education.”

Davidson previously made headlines for stepping down from the Colorado Concern board over its support of 50 & 108, explaining in her resignation letter that “Concern’s proposed direction on the property tax issue poses significant challenges and adverse effects on our colleges and universities, our students, and our Colorado community.”

In addition to DMCC members leading public entities, there was another notable entity on the initial “50 & 108 are real threats” letter: the Colorado Competitive Council. Executive director Rachel Beck is also part of DMCC’s senior leadership team. Beck did not respond to a request to reconcile the seemingly contradictory positions.

One thought on “Denver Chamber Signs On to Conservative Groups’ Special Session Demands, Then Tries to Clarify”

JohnNorthofDenver says:

August 28, 2024 at 2:36 pm

Remove them. Remove them from their positions in the Universitys and demand that the schools end affiliation with the chamber of commerce.

These are the same assholes who said students couldn’t protest? FIRE THEM! Also cut the budget the hundreds of thousands they claimed would be needed to regrow grass in the quad.

Log in to Reply

Login

Lost Password

Denver Chamber Signs On to Conservative Groups' Special Session Demands, Then Tries to Clarify

Comments

One thought on “Denver Chamber Signs On to Conservative Groups’ Special Session Demands, Then Tries to Clarify”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Recent Comments

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Newsletter