Issue 1B violates our Revolutionary heritage of “No taxation without representation.”

Dear editor,

After reading the article by Dave Munger and Brian Risley in Sunday’s Gazette concerning Issue 1-B,  the $40 million yearly tax hike, I felt compelled to respond.

Vote No!

As Vince Rusinak notes, the state bears the major responsibility for enforcing and protecting water rights. The state ought to assume the primary role for funding and fixing whatever problems might interfere with downstream rights.

Another reason for voting no on 1B

The proponents of 1B want voters to agree that SOME property owners should pay a new “stormwater
fee” because of improvements (impervious surfaces) added to the land they own, surfaces which the

Stormwater: not acceptable in current form

This impervious surface methodology was wrong when the city of Colorado Springs tried it out a decade ago and today it continues to be wrong, wrong, wrong!

No sunset date is a problem

I do not have a problem with having a stormwater fee or tax. Something must be done for a problem that impacts us all in one way or another. I think it is a good idea for the solution to be regional, as the problem itself is regional. I would be willing to pay the fee or tax but for one thing.

Biggest boondoggle of all

What has happened to the editorial board of The Gazette?

Making a "Yes" recommendation to the existing proposal for another storm water tax/fee seems way beyond logic and common sense. I usually find myself in harmony with most of The Gazette's official recommendations.

Already seeing stormwater projects

On Tuesday, Oct. 7 Colorado Springs Utilities will be hosting a celebration for the completion of the Fountain Creek Improvement Project on Clear Spring Ranch.

One must temper emotions

The fires followed by torrential rains have caused much emotional stress within our community. Emotion is a powerful expression and for the most part, very useful. In decision-making, however, one must temper this force.