🚀 go-pugleaf

More information on Amendment 24 can be found at
http://www.yeson24.com/ .  Responses to the top 10 developer 
myths can be found at  http://www.yeson24.com/ .

---------------



ALBERT   ALLEN   BARTLETT

Boulder, Colorado, 80304-2719
E-Mail: albert singledot bartlett at colorado deletethis dot edu


VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 24

This is written to indicate my strong support for state Amendment 24.

It is simply amazing the way the opponents of 24 use the newspapers
and the airwaves to advertise their complete lack of understanding of
the problems of growth.  The common statement used by the opponents of
Amendment 24 suggest that 24 will cause housing costs to "skyrocket."
This conclusion is based on the Law of Supply & Demand, but the
argument is incomplete.  The use of the incomplete argument leads to
the wrong conclusion. The argument does not consider demand, and if
you�re going to use the Law of Supply & Demand, you have to consider
demand.  Housing costs are skyrocketing in many places from coast to
coast.  The more attractive the location and the more effective the
promotion of growth (demand) in the location, the greater is the
demand for housing and the more rapid is the escalation of land and
housing costs.  Thus one can understand why housing costs are higher
in Aspen than in Boulder, and higher in Boulder than in Denver, etc.
Housing costs in Boulder were rising rapidly before the growth
limitations were voted in by the people of Boulder, and they continued
to rise rapidly after the growth limitations were in place. The start
of Boulder�s growth limitation plan had little or no effect on the
rate of rise of housing prices in Boulder.  Boulder was simply ahead
of the curve in recognizing the high costs to taxpayers of population
growth, and now other Colorado communities are recognizing these high
costs and are following Boulder�s lead.  

The unfettered and enormously successful promotion of the growth
(demand) in Colorado is mind-boggling.  Forbes Magazine is a major
national business publication.  The October 2 issue of Forbes has a
Special Advertising Section of more than 20 pages which invites people
and businesses to move to Colorado.  Every page has a picture of a
business or political leader offering all manner of consideration to
entice businesses to move here to increase demand.  You won�t find
this Special Advertising Section in the issue of Forbes at the local
library, because ads are targeted geographically: so this Advertising
Section does not appear in issues of Forbes distributed in Colorado.
(It would make no sense to spend money to urge Colorado residents to
move to Colorado.)  It�s the old Law of Supply & Demand.  High housing
costs in Colorado are the direct consequence of the success of the
well-funded efforts to boost demand by "Selling Colorado."  The
efforts to restrict growth is a logical response of citizens who can�t
or don�t want to pay the high costs of growth.  Now we must ask, why
would a group of business leaders invest hundreds of thousands of
dollars for magazine ads whose intent is to hasten the destruction of
the environment of Colorado by getting more businesses to move to
Colorado so as to increase the demand for housing?  It is probably
these same "leaders" who have raised over $4 million to defeat 24.
Now one has to ask, why would these leaders invest over $4 million to
defeat the effort of citizens of Colorado to protect themselves from
the devastation that we all know is the predictable consequence of
continued population growth?  Are these expenditures of millions of
dollars a prudent investment on which these business leaders expect to
realize a handsome return, or are these millions a sincere charitable
effort to advance good government and to help people who need low-cost
housing?

The high costs of this eagerly promoted growth have left us two
legacies.  We have an enormous shortfall in the quality and quantity
of public infrastructure such as schools, streets, highways, etc. and
at the same time we have a state budget surplus which is not nearly
large enough to cover the shortfall.  The second legacy of  population
growth is the threat of tax-cutting amendments which appeal to voters
whose ways of life have been hurt by the high costs of growth.  Look
at what happened in California.  Population growth led to high taxes;
the high taxes led to the taxpayer revolt (Proposition 13) which
limited or reduced taxes.  Unfortunately the population growth in
California continued in spite of the tax limitations voted in by the
citizens, and this continued growth, without the necessary tax
support, has destroyed much of which made California great.  Now we in
Colorado are rushing to follow California�s lead.  If passed,
Amendment 24 will slow the rate of rise of taxes that inevitably have
to increase to pay the costs of growth.  This slowing of the rate of
rise of taxes should appeal to all Coloradoans.

The saddest of the arguments against 24 is the timid suggestion that
we don�t know how 24 will work, ("It�s never been tried before.")
therefore we should not try it.  The irony here is that if we continue
to do nothing we do know exactly what will happen.  We know we are
already well on our way to creating the new Los Angeles in Colorado.
Those who use this "don�t know" argument would seem to prefer the
certainty of the creation of the new Los Angeles to the uncertainty
that we may be able to do something better for the people of Colorado.
They seem to prefer the certainty of increased congestion, increased
taxes, increased pollution and destruction of the environment, to the
uncertainty of the possibility that we can create something better.
The pioneers who founded Colorado did not shrink from their westward
migration because it had never been tried before so they did not know
how it would work.

Now we are facing more crises that are caused by growth: We are
running short of electricity.  As demand grew rapidly, little was done
to build more generating capacity in Colorado: electricity was simply
imported from elsewhere.  Our leaders fiddled while inadequacy of
electricity supplies in Colorado became more and more apparent and now
there is not much more electricity available for us to import.  As a
consequence we now have to worry about brown-outs in the hot summers
and higher prices for electricity.  Now, at last, the utility people
are talking about building more electric generating capacity.  But,
instead of building conventional coal-fired generating plants, the
utilities are buying gas turbines which are cheaper and cleaner.
These gas turbines are consuming so much natural gas that they are
straining the gas supplies. As a consequence we see reports that we
can expect that our gas bills for heating our homes may go up by as
much as 40% this winter. Our supplies of natural gas in the U.S. are
limited, so already we import substantial amounts of gas from Canada.
The expected escalation of the price of natural gas is a direct
consequence of growth, and our leaders continue to promote growth.
Whose side are they on?

Perhaps the most devastating consequence of growth is the loss of
democracy.  In 1950 Boulder�s population was 20,000 and there were 9
members of the City Council.  Today the population is approaching
100,000 and there are still just 9 members on the City Council.
Democracy in Boulder has been diluted to one fifth of what it was 50
years ago!  The Wall Street Journal of September 22, 1999 carried a
major story about citizens in Colorado Springs fighting the developers
who want complete freedom to continue to build as they please.  One of
the developers was upset that citizens were opposing his plans.  The
story quoting the developer says, "Neighborhood groups �shouldn�t be
in control of what happens' You can�t be an elected official and let
people dictate the law of the land.�"  Hello?  We can�t let people
dictate the law of the land!

Amendment 24 will not stop all this destruction; it will simply
require that the destruction be planned and orderly so that the public
costs to the taxpayers of each new construction will be reduced.  This
will reduce the rate of escalation of housing prices and that helps
everybody.  

The most unfortunate lack of understanding of the problems of growth
is demonstrated by those who say that Amendment 24 does not belong in
the Colorado Constitution because then it can�t be modified to meet
special needs.  That is exactly the point.  "Special Needs" can be
dictated by big money, and the big money people want to continue to
have the ability to spend money to get things changed.  In 2000 the
Colorado Legislature refused to deal with the problems of growth.  If
24 was an initiated law, it is probable that the Legislature would
dismantle it as quickly as possible.  So it is especially important
that Amendment 24 be a part of the Colorado Constitution because the
Constitution can�t be easily subverted by groups that can raise $4
million to defeat the wishes of the people. Amendment 24 is designed
to let people, and not the million-dollar special interests, dictate
the law of the land.

If we are really concerned for the welfare of "those least able to
afford decent housing," we will do two things;  we will vote YES on
Amendment 24, and we will then work to stop the continued commercial
exploitation of Colorado so that people can live here in peace and
prosperity, enjoying what�s left of the environment.



Albert A. Bartlett: Professor Emeritus of Physics
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
E-Mail:  albert singledot bartlett at colorado deletethis dot edu

ooooo

	Every increment of added population, and
	Each added increment of affluence,
	Invariably destroys an increment
	Of the remaining environment.

	Population growth and increases in affluence
	Make it impossible for reasonable increments 
	Of improved efficiency in the use of resources 
	To enhance or even to preserve the environment.
	
	You cannot preserve the environment 
		by accepting the population growth 
		and the increased affluence
		that are destroying the environment.