By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project
A look at Prop 137, and why I’m opposed.
Prop 137, at least to me, has flown under the radar. I’ve not heard of it (perhaps I’m not looking in the right spots, but I don’t think I’ve seen much in the mainstream media), and haven’t thought to go and look through all the ballot initiatives either.
A reader recently sent me a message and it had the opposition website which I link to first below. You are welcome to go and paw through it. It’s clear that both the reader and whoever is running that site are firmly against Prop 137. I don’t think that I entirely agree in that opposition, more on that soon.
The second link below is to the Legislative page for the ballot measure. If you scroll down all the way to the bottom you can see the various drafts for the Blue Book language with the final link being what was presented to the legislative council for approval. I will use that to discuss the measure. Look for the link labeled “Ballot Analysis Blue Book”.
Prop 137 doesn’t collect new tax revenue, it earmarks tax revenue already collected for certain sporting goods to be used for a variety of outdoor purposes.
Screenshot 1 attached shows the summary of what the money will be used for.
Screenshot 2 is from further down and the best way I think to describe what you see here is that this is the “how”. This is the tangible direction the money will flow in. This is where it goes.
I mentioned above that I didn’t entire agree with the group’s opposition to this measure. There is some overlap, but by and large the group whose page is linked first below seems largely to be opposed for environmental reasons (if you’re from that group or you know more about their position than I, please feel free to correct my impression in the comments).
I am not so concerned about that; I actually want our forests thinned. I am convinced that part of the issue we’ve had with giant megafires relates to our policy of stopping every fire that starts, building up a huge amount of timber waiting to be ignited.
If that group’s opposition could be characterized as environmental, I think my opposition to this measure would be characterized as procedural. I think some of the uses for this money are good ones, but go revisit screenshot 2 to see the parts I highlighted.
When it comes to the actual use of the money you can see a familiar pattern for Colorado: public money as grants and as grants for things I can’t support. Forest fire mitigation yes, outdoor equity (whatever that means here), not so much. Money given out to do things, yes. Money given to Great Outdoors Colorado, a group which has liberally sprinkled lottery money on groups like the Southern Plains Land Trust, no.
And then you arrive at what you see in Screenshot 3. This would be an area where I and the opposition group overlap: as so often happens with these sorts of things, the money collected isn’t new, but they will be able to keep all that’s collected if you vote yes.
I.e. this doesn’t sound like it, but in the sense that the government keeps more of your money, it is a new tax. It is a tax increase.
I am a firm no on this ballot measure. While I may not have agreed with everything that I saw in the link the reader sent, I am grateful they sent it because it made me take a second to get a look at the measure and share with you.
If you come across things that you think are worth sharing, please do. I may not always agree with everything, but I do give them a look.
https://noprop137.com/opposition
https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/direct-sporting-goods-sales-tax-revenue-for-conservation-2
READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.