Amendment 38 on the Nov. 7 ballot would weaken representative government in Colorado and could undercut state and local economic development efforts. The Post urges a “no” vote.
Alarmed by the risk of job losses, the business community has made defeating Amendment 38 its top priority in this election, as it did in the two previous times the issue went before state voters. Amendment 38 might well be dubbed “grandson of Bruce.” It’s very similar to the so-called “Petition Rights Amendment” authored by anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce in 1994 and rejected by a 78 percent to 22 percent margin. A slightly modified version, dubbed “Son of Bruce,” was likewise crushed in 1996. Now, two Bruce acolytes, Doug Campbell and Dennis Polhill, are making a third try to radically change Colorado’s rules for initiatives and referendums.
Campbell and Polhill have tinkered with the earlier drafts in an effort to defuse the opposition from the business community. As a result, the 2006 version includes language stating, “This section shall not apply to referendum petitions to reduce private property rights, such as zoning challenges, which petitions may still lawfully exist.”
Despite those words, state business leaders are virtually unanimous in warning that passage of Amendment 38 could seriously undermine property rights in Colorado and hinder efforts to create new jobs.
To begin with, the murky language seems to exclude “petitions to reduce private property rights” even while stipulating that such petitions “may still lawfully exist.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez wrote to Bruce on June 30 to repudiate his earlier support of the measure, noting that many lawyers believe, “Amendment 38, instead of protecting private property rights, would unintentionally have the exact opposite effect private property in a number of ways, including down-zoning, change-in-use, site plan approvals, and other local government decisions.”
State voters already enjoy initiative and referendum rights similar to those outlined in Amendment 38. How would extending such rules to all units of government pose a threat to property owners and businesses?
Simply put, the state plays little role in land-use and zoning decisions, which are the job of cities, counties and special districts. Cities already have initiative and referendum provisions but would face complicated new mandates if Amendment 38 passes. The state’s 64 counties and more than 1,500 special districts are not now covered by initiative and referendum provisions but would be if Amendment 38 passes. Business leaders fear that imposing such rules at the local level could result in a two-year delay on new developments, even those eventually approved by the voters.
To understand why, assume Bucolic County has agreed to rezone a cow pasture to allow for a residential project and an adjacent shopping area. Once the necessary rezoning was passed, opponents of the plan would have up to a year to collect signatures demanding reversal of that action. If they meet that deadline, the issue would go before the voters in the next general election – which could be as much as a year off. Even if county voters approve the measure, the project would have been delayed by up to two years. Meanwhile, inflation, interest and other costs are mounting, forcing homebuilders to raise the price of their new homes or simply abandon the project.
This editorial, by the way, is about 640 words. And it has only managed to scratch the surface in describing the complex set of changes Amendment 38 could send reverberating through Colorado’s cities, counties and special districts. Yet, one of Amendment 38’s new rules would limit the ballot titles that describe issues to voters to just 75 words! Land-use and zoning decisions, like many other local government actions, are complex and deserve serious study by our elected officials, acting after full public hearings and open debate. Displacing that time-honored role of representative democracy with 75-word snippets of over-simplification isn’t “direct democracy.”
It’s populism run amok.
