Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Anti-tax proposal has some lawmakers scratching their heads

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 19, 2009 at 6:42 p.m.

Text size  

More Colorado Government

More stories »

A proposed 2010 ballot measure appears to roll back property tax actions passed after 1992, but legislators aren't sure because they say the language is confusing.

"Honestly, I don't what they're trying to do here," Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, said after reading the proposal.

Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction and Senate minority leader, said: "I'm torn. I love tax cuts, but I have a longstanding policy against run-on sentences and non sequiturs in the Constitution."

Other lawmakers who reviewed it said the authors might be unwittingly giving undocumented immigrants the right to vote. That's because it allows Coloradans to vote on property tax issues in any district where they own taxable property.

The proposal was filed Tuesday by Bonnie Solan, of Black Hawk, a mortgage planner, and Lou Schroeder, of Greenwood Village. Neither returned phone calls.

Schroeder is huge fan of Douglas Bruce, author of the 1992 Taypayer's Bill of Rights. Schroeder last year nominated Bruce as "Man of the Year" on a conservative blog.

The proposal would amend TABOR to include various property tax provisions.

It states: "Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired."

Ferrandino, who sits on the Joint Budget Committee, said he believes the proposal is related to a controversial property tax law that Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter and the Democratic-controlled legislature approved in 2007.

The law froze property tax rates in most of the state's school districts, blocking a scheduled dip in property taxes. The freeze means higher tax bills for owners of property that has risen in value.

The law is expected to raise an additional $1.7 billion for schools over 11 years.

Opponents sued, arguing the law is unconstitutional because TABOR requires voter approval of tax increases. The case is pending before the Colorado Supreme Court.

Ferrandino said he's not sure if the measure would reduce the property taxes available for school districts. If it does, the state might have to backfill district budgets.

That could wipe out the state's general fund budget, which provides money for prisons, motor vehicle offices and such, he said.

Filing a proposal with the Legislative Council is the first of many steps of getting a measure on the ballot. If the proposal survives those steps and is approved by voters in 2010, it would go into effect in 2011.

Comments

  • February 19, 2009

    8:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    The only thing this will do is put the voter in charge.

  • February 19, 2009

    9:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JayRoy writes:

    I can certainly tell, at first glance, the position of whoever gave this article its title. "Anti-tax proposal" is an inaccurate and dishonest title. I believe in TABOR's limits on tax increases. That doesn't make me (or Douglas Bruce) and "anti-tax" crusader. It just means he and I believe in limits.

  • February 19, 2009

    10:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    scotchula writes:

    I agree this article is a little one sided. I am interested in finding out more about what this bill says. I am all for limiting government. I am excited to see new anti tax measures giving the citizens more say in how their govt is run.

  • February 20, 2009

    4:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    44roger writes:

    when a school district spends 10 grand on starbucks coffee and gets away with it, the system is broken.

  • February 20, 2009

    7:30 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    LB could not right objectively if her life depended on it.

    Anti per Websters means NO, NONE.

    I am guessing this petition has modest reductions however ultimately the voter is in charge.

    "Shall there be no taxes in the state of Colorado?" Lynn is this what the petition says?

  • February 20, 2009

    7:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    WeCanDoBetter writes:

    It would be nice if the Rocky Mountain News would find a place on their site for the text of the proposed amendment. Let us decide if it is swill.

  • February 20, 2009

    7:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    Can Josh Penry specify which sentence is a run on?

  • February 20, 2009

    1:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    COGrownFarmBoy writes:

    It sounds like the proposal needs to be rewritten in simple, correct English before it is considered. Once it is clear what the results are then let us decide. Too many times these proposals we are looking at are so complicated that they end up doing things that nobody wants. As a single taxpayer with no children, I am one of those who ends up paying higher taxes with no benefits but I still want to know what it really says before I would consider voting for it. As a general rule my motto on ballot proposals is "Just say no."

  • February 20, 2009

    5:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    farmboy,

    Have you read it? Do you believe everything the paper prints?