NO on 2A
Douglas Bruce calls stormwater ballot issue 'rain tax' revisited
The printed version of this TV interview had a mistake in calculation. There are about 600,000 PEOPLE (not property owners) in the district. Divide that into $40 million, and the per person cost is $67. Since children don't pay taxes directly, consider an average family of four, with a cost four times that of an individual. That is four times $67 per person, or $268, which we round down to $265. That's a far cry from their phony $7.70 per month per homeowner, isn't it?
Comments from Channel 5 TV interview
Let me go on record. John Burnside definitely opposes this tax and how the political shell game will be played out. My experience with the political systems here in Colorado Springs leaves much to be desired when it comes to fair representation. If this ballot issue passes, we will be screwed for possibly decades to come with not a darn thing we can do about it!
This TAX, is the city government's way of coming back to Home & Property Owners for letting The Developers slip through all those years ago, on NOT properly establishing good erosion controls, drainage managements, and the like!
Nah, as far as taxes go I PASS ON ALL INCREASES...as well what they choose to do with the money they DO get. in fact I say VOTE THEM OUT!! THEY ARE NOT GOOD FOR THIS CITY!!! in fact go look at Uintah street and how they are scrambling to fix the mess they made over there with C.S.U. or how they paint the police fleet rather than hire additional officers to keep the streets safe. or how they redo gutter and curb work rather than FIX THE HOLES IN OUR STREETS THAT ARE SWALLOWING CARS as they go down the street!
Any taxation without limitations and a transparent financial plan is a pork plan for politicians and their friends to pocket money from the citizens they're supposed to protect and serve...Let's hope we don't end up like Baltimore, that voted for the tax because they couldn't think of a better way to manage their existing funds.
I'll vote no because there is not a reasonable end to this "tax," so it will go on for ever and ever. Secondly, the odds are that the council members will have a way to shift the funds to do other things they want.
Sgm Wayne Caudill-Retired