Letters: Oregon’s example does not apply

The following letter was edited for length.

To the editor:

Proponents of Amendment 24 have shown a critical lack of judgement in calling attention to Oregon’s growth-management statute as an example of how Colorado will benefit from a similar measure.

SPONSORED CONTENT

Empowering communities

Rocky Mountain Health Plans (RMHP), part of the UnitedHealthcare family, has pledged its commitment to uplift these communities through substantial investments in organizations addressing the distinct needs of our communities.

Either proponents of 24 didn’t take the time to review the situation in Oregon, or they don’t know their own initiative or they have decided we aren’t intelligent enough to understand the difference. Four critical misrepresentations have been put forward: the differences between statutory law and Constitutional Amendment, function, economic impact and traffic-congestion relief associated with controlled growth.

The legislation in Oregon was enacted in 1973 and has experienced numerous revisions and clarifications over the years. In speaking with interests on both sides of the fence, the law works well but still is not perfect after 27 years of refinement.

Proponents of 24 presume to have a perfect document on first draft (since Constitutional Amendments can not be refined without subsequent statewide ballot initiatives) without the benefit of input from interests outside the environmental community, with very limited exception. Oregonians had the opportunity to discuss, analyze and craft their law. When were you provided the same courtesy with Amendment 24?

Oregon’s law is far different in practice than the initiative here. Oregon’s law essentially draws wide belts around existing municipalities, providing planning and zoning definitions for the area. In other words, cities and towns know where and how they can grow and plan accordingly. Amendment 24 “zips up” the borders around municipalities and requires any growth outside the existing boundaries to go before the voters for approval.

The planning staff at city and county level, indeed residents, are now without vision of what their area will look like until development proposals are brought forward and evaluated individually, precluding a long-range vision for that community. Do we really want to cobble our communities together in this fashion? I thought this document was supposed to provide a vision, as is commonly proclaimed.

It is also important to note that traffic in Portland and other metropolitan areas of Oregon is just as frustrating as it is along the Front Range. Proponents use traffic gridlock as one rallying cry for change, yet the Amendment prescribes nothing to solve the issue. According to the latest statistics available, Portland commuters spend more time in their cars than in Denver. Perhaps one reason is the fact that many residents have decided to live in Vancouver, Wa., where they can live in the housing style that fits their needs rather than the dictates of special interests.

We invite the voters of Colorado to discover how this amendment will impact you and the future of our state by visiting our Web site at: www.fortcollinschamber.com to obtain a copy of the ballot language and important information regarding this measure. Take stock in your future and vote “no” on Amendment 24.

Joe Rowan

Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce

Bigger not always better

To the editor:

Are you interested in having more say in how our communities grow? Are you interested in less wasteful spending of our tax dollars to fuel sprawl? And wouldn’t you like to protect the things that make Colorado so special? Then you need to support Amendment 24 in the upcoming November election.

Bigger is not always better, although there are some who would want you to believe that. And unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation and scare tactics used by the opposition. I find it interesting that the opposition has raised $2.6 million, 76 percent from developers. The developers are outspending citizens by more than 10 to one to try and convince voters that out-of-control growth is a figment of our imaginations.

All one has to do these days to figure out that growth is out-of-control is drive on our crowded, and sometimes antiquated, roads. And while you are out driving, have you noticed all the open land that is disappearing? We are losing 140,000 acres of open space every year in Colorado.

Amendment 24 is a reasonable step forward to protect Colorado’s future and give citizens a much needed voice on how and where their communities will grow. This is not about no growth, this is about voters of Colorado taking control of growth management, something our own legislature and governor have completely failed to do. Let’s not pave paradise and turn it all into a parking lot! Please join me in supporting Amendment 24!

Nancy Dunavan

Fort Collins