Get involved in land use policy. When you rein in gov't spending, expect resistance (even if things are not as apocalyptic as the gov't tells you).
Get informed on local land use policy and how the bills that came this last legislative session will change things.
While you're at it, you'll learn about where and how to get involved.
A reader got the message linked first below and forwarded it to me. I wanted to share with you.
It gives information (and a way to register -- see link #2 below) about an informational Zoom meeting Colorado's Division of Local Government (an office housed in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs) will be having about changes to policy as a result of this last legislative session.
There are a couple of important things to note:
1. This meeting is coming up soon. It's June 27th at noon. Don't wait if you want to attend.
2. This meeting itself is informational, but, quoting the email, it will provide "..anticipated stakeholder engagement opportunities". I.e. if you are concerned about what the state will do, go to the meeting or get the recording so you can learn when and how to get involved.
Give the email below a look and then sign up if this is of interest (or pass the info along to someone else).
Get involved and do it now at the beginning. Don't wait til things are set like concrete.
https://mailchi.mp/528601629716/division-of-local-government-newsletter-april-6724830?e=7f65ae1717
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZEtceqrqTIjH9drTSNNcvphcB4Norn6OMbU?mc_cid=a2a64aaa3a&mc_eid=7f65ae1717#/registration
When you go to rein in government spending, expect resistance.
Expect it from Dems. Expect if from Republicans. Expect it from government functionaries.
The Sum and Substance article linked first below details the doom and gloom forecast from the Colorado State Budget Director if voters approve Initiative 50 (on the ballot) and Initiative 108 (out gathering signatures).
Worth a read--it gives you a window into what the government thinks about attempts to pull back on how much they can collect.
I don't disagree with the main contention here by the state's budget director. Yes, if you lower tax rates and restrict the amount the government can collect, they'll have less money to spend.
However, as more than a few people have likely heard in their lives: welcome to adulthood. Sometimes you have to make hard choices and sacrifices.
The attitude evident here by our government still continues to baffle me. Over and over, in articles I've read, in testifying at places like my local school board, I see resistance to the idea that the government ought to have some restraint in its spending, and that it ought to have to reduce its spending when times get tight.
Instead of our government sharing a burden and tightening their belts, we see threats. Without tax revenue our roads and bridges will fall into disrepair! Government-funded healthcare (Medicaid) patients will suffer! Without tax revenue we'll have to close schools!
None of these things automatically follow. They are scare tactics used by those who support keeping the government large to fund their pet projects.
Our roads and bridges are already in disrepair. Yet part of the money promised to "finally fix our damn roads" (Polis) goes to grants for EV's and E-bikes. Maybe we could make it easier on taxpayers by lowering EV subsidies instead of defunding road construction.**
How about healthcare? Perhaps we could shrink Medicaid back a bit from the expansion it underwent during COVID. Maybe we could stop funding healthcare for "pregnant people" here illegally and their progeny (see the second link below). Could that save some money lost to revenue cuts if taxes are lowered? Maybe not a huge cut, but not nothing.
As for schools, the ever-ready cudgel to beat people about the head with when you talk about reining in government spending, I would point you to all the numerous FTE's created by our legislature over the past four years when growing government. Maybe some trimming there? Maybe lose some executive offices? Maybe not pay our lieutenant governor two salaries?
The point is that, elected officials on down to functionaries, few that work in the government want it to shrink. Few want to let you have your money to put to the uses you deem best.
When you try to demand it back, be ready for them to howl.
**Watch for a future series on where your "fix our damn roads" fee money is going.
https://www.cpr.org/2022/06/07/colorado-expands-medicaid-access-undocumented-pregnant-people/
Property tax revenues are (mostly) up. Way up.
While a doom and gloom forecast comes from Colorado's Budget Director (see the previous post), if you look at property tax revenues you see a HUGE spike.**
I wanted to post the Common Sense Institute study on property tax revenues today because it provides some nice counterpoint to the comments by the state budget director in the previous post.
Feel free to dive deeper. I linked to the report below. What I want to focus on here is in screenshots 1 -3 attached from the report.
Note how in screenshot 1property tax revenue (in blue) is clearly and largely outpacing other indicators, including that of wage growth. Is government hurting when your family's income is barely keeping ahead of inflation?
Note how in screenshot 2 school revenues are up higher than inflation and student growth for schools. In fact, according to the report, the revenues are up enough that the state can afford to both pay off the BS factor (in keeping with constitutional requirements) AND not grow its funding at as high a rate as before.
Temper both these things with screenshot 3. This is a state map superimposed with school districts and the districts are colored according to their revenue growth or loss. Red is growth with darker shades being more growth, whiteish is no growth, and blue is a loss, again with darker shades being more loss. Similar ones for revenue (showing gains AND losses) can be found in the report. Unsurprisingly, the losses and gains largely seem to overlap for schools and revenue in general.
It's important to note that not all are going up and going up equally. Given that I would agree that an overall, statewide cut could prove harmful to some services.
Here's the thing about that. The state could, if it chose and without raising any new revenue on its own, level this out. That is, the state could pay less to some and more to others if the local property tax revenue were reduced.
What I mean is what I mentioned in my earlier post: a loss of property tax revenue doesn't automatically mean a death knell for this state's finances and services. Much of what could (and would) need to happen is up to the legislature and their level of commitment to having our government do what you and I have to--tighten our belts when times are tight.
Clearly, by the report below, there's room for tightening, there's some holes on the skinny side of the buckle that we could use.
**Fairness and completeness here demand an important note be included: revenue is up, but so is cost. As I'm sure you're aware, everything just costs more these days. You will, therefore, see that the figures I chose from the report below reference inflation (and sometimes also population) adjusted figures, not raw numbers. By using inflation-adjusted, you can compare fairly how revenues have climbed compared to prices. You can also see on many graphs how wages compare--another cost driver.