Vote NO on 6A and 6B

Elections
1

Arguments against ballot issue 6A:

  1. Affordability is a symptom, not a root cause: While it’s true that housing in Chaffee County is becoming unaffordable, the market issues driving this problem—like higher interest rates, rising construction costs, and land prices—won’t be solved by raising taxes. Increasing sales taxes shifts the burden onto all consumers, including those already struggling with high costs, without addressing the systemic issues in the housing market.

  2. Mismanagement and lack of accountability: Entrusting a significant revenue stream to the Chaffee Housing Authority (CHA) for 12 years with no guarantees of success is risky. There is no clear accountability mechanism to ensure that these funds will be managed effectively, and similar programs in other areas have faced delays, mismanagement, or failed to deliver the intended results. There’s no assurance that this tax increase will lead to meaningful progress in solving the housing crisis.

  3. Temporary relief, long-term dependency: The creation of affordable housing is not a quick fix; 6A’s promises of accelerating production may not live up to expectations. Affordable housing projects can take years, if not decades, to complete, and by the time these units are ready, market conditions may have changed, requiring even more investment. The 12-year sunset period is arbitrary and may result in a short-term band-aid solution rather than addressing long-term housing needs.

  4. Unfair tax burden on locals and visitors: While proponents argue that visitors will pay a portion of the sales tax, the reality is that locals will bear the brunt of this increase. Residents of Chaffee County, especially those on lower incomes, will be disproportionately affected by higher sales taxes on everyday items. Raising taxes may also deter tourism and spending by visitors who are sensitive to increased costs.

  5. State and federal funding alternatives: While the proposal notes limits on state funding, it doesn’t fully explore alternatives like leveraging federal and state grants, private-public partnerships, or other financing options without raising taxes. CHA could focus on maximizing existing funds and increasing efficiency instead of relying on an additional tax burden on residents.

  6. No guarantee of keeping housing affordable: Even if 6A leads to the creation of affordable housing, there is no guarantee that it will remain affordable long-term. Market fluctuations, rising maintenance costs, and administrative expenses could drive up rents or property prices over time, undermining the intended benefit of keeping homes accessible to residents.

  7. Public acquisition of land isn’t always beneficial: Using public funds to acquire land for future affordable housing can be problematic. Tying up valuable land in speculative housing projects might prevent its use for other vital purposes that could better serve the community in the near term, such as public parks, commercial development, or infrastructure projects that also contribute to economic vitality.

  8. Economic risks for employers and workers: While 6A supporters argue that affordable housing will help employers attract workers, higher taxes can harm the local economy by reducing disposable income and discouraging consumer spending. Small businesses and workers may be negatively impacted by the higher cost of goods and services, which could negate the benefits of affordable housing projects.

  9. Existing taxes should suffice: The County has already passed other taxes for public purposes without a sunset clause. This new sales tax may be an overreach, as residents have supported other causes in the past without continuous tax increases. Instead of introducing a new tax, the CHA could better utilize existing resources or reallocate funds from other public projects.

  10. Risk of insufficient impact: Raising sales taxes is a blunt instrument for addressing a complex issue like housing. Despite the promised increase in resources, there is no guarantee that the funds raised will result in the necessary 1,105 units by 2027. If this goal isn’t met, taxpayers will have shouldered an unnecessary financial burden with minimal results.

1 Like
2

Arguments against ballot issue 6B:

  1. Accountability and fiscal discipline: TABOR (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) restrictions are in place to ensure that government agencies, like the Chaffee Housing Authority (CHA), operate with fiscal responsibility and transparency. Removing these restrictions could reduce oversight and allow the CHA to expand its budget without direct approval from voters, potentially leading to mismanagement or inefficient use of funds.

  2. Unchecked growth in government spending: Allowing CHA to retain all state and local funding without revenue limits could result in unchecked growth in spending. While proponents argue this will help fund affordable housing projects, it also means the CHA could accumulate excessive funds that are not efficiently used. This undermines the principles of voter control over taxation and government spending.

  3. Alternative funding sources already exist: Even with TABOR restrictions, CHA still has access to various funding sources, including state and federal grants, private donations, and other forms of public financing. Removing the TABOR limit isn’t necessary to secure funds for affordable housing projects, especially if the agency is more efficient with the resources it already has.

  4. Focus on fiscal discipline, not exemptions: The fact that other counties, municipalities, and school districts have removed their TABOR restrictions doesn’t mean it’s the right choice for Chaffee County. Each jurisdiction has different fiscal needs, and exempting CHA from these limits might lead to financial inefficiency or over-reliance on taxpayer dollars, without solving the core issues in affordable housing.

  5. Setting a precedent for more exemptions: Approving 6B could open the door for other government entities to seek similar exemptions, leading to a gradual erosion of taxpayer protections. It’s important to maintain checks on government revenue growth to ensure responsible spending and avoid setting a precedent for future exemptions that could burden taxpayers even further.

  6. Risk of future tax increases: Removing TABOR restrictions could create incentives for the CHA to push for higher taxes in the future, knowing they would have the flexibility to retain more revenue. Voters should be wary of opening the floodgates to potentially higher taxes without their direct say on how these funds are used.

  7. Jane’s Place delay may not justify de-Brucing: While proponents highlight that removing the TABOR limit would unlock $3 million to proceed with Jane’s Place, a 17-unit project, it’s important to consider if this single project justifies changing fiscal policy for the entire CHA. Alternative solutions, such as seeking grants or private partnerships, could be pursued to fund this project without permanently altering revenue limits.

  8. Loss of voter control: One of the main principles of TABOR is allowing voters to have a say in how government entities collect and spend revenue. De-Brucing the CHA removes this check, giving the agency more financial power without direct voter oversight, which could lead to policies or projects that don’t align with community priorities.

  9. Local control matters more than state trends: Just because other districts have de-Bruced doesn’t mean Chaffee County should follow suit. The local housing market and the CHA’s performance may differ from other areas in Colorado. Voters should focus on what makes sense for their own community, not statewide trends.

  10. Potential for inefficiency and overreach: By allowing CHA to retain more revenue, there is the risk that funds could be spent inefficiently or on projects that aren’t directly aligned with the most pressing housing needs in Chaffee County. Without the fiscal guardrails that TABOR provides, the agency might lose focus or overreach in its use of taxpayer money.

1 Like
3

While everyone is entitled to their personal opinion on root causes of our housing crisis, there are a number of factual errors and misstatements in this post regarding TABOR. I highly recommend fact checking this post using a knowledge source for Colorado fiscal policy. The principal error is that CHA will NOT be able to retain state grants or loans to invest in housing without voter approval of removing TABOR. TABOR’s limit only allows for funding to be retained for 1 year after which it must be returned to the funder (not taxpayers). To construct expensive affordable housing projects requires multiple millions of dollars which often takes more than one year. Information is posted to the CHA website clarifying this and what the revenue ceiling would be (under $300K) without voter approval of 6B. This is why the fire district, library, school district, county, city, towns, etc. in our county have all debruced.

4

Welcome to our community.

Your response overlooks some of the broader concerns my arguments raised, such as accountability, transparency, and whether CHA has effectively used the funds it has already received. It also doesn’t address concerns about regressive taxation, government spending priorities, or the impact on taxpayers. While the explanation about TABOR’s limits may clarify some technical details, it doesn’t fully respond to the bigger question of whether voters should support removing these restrictions without assurances that CHA will deliver meaningful and cost-effective housing solutions.

It’s important to continue emphasizing the need for accountability and demonstrating clear results before asking taxpayers to approve additional funding or relax spending restrictions.

5

Excellent summary of reasons to vote NO on 6A and 6B.

I can add to this summary: No realtor or any person attempting or even thinking about selling a piece of real estate will point out the fact that housing prices are dropping dramatically. Throughout what is usually the busy real estate sales season, that season of 2024 has consisted of most properties in Chaffee County listed for sale sitting on the market for many months, and rental rates are falling also. I will note my neighbor across the street in Salida listed their house for sale for $750,000 in June 2023 and sold the house in late September 2023 for $450,000. This is the reality and is not what you will see in any news article locally. In 2024, I see so many properties listed for prices that are pie-in-the-sky listing prices reflective of 2021, properties that have been on the market in 2024 for 4 or 6 months, and now we are heading into the slow season of real estate sales.

Property taxes have doubled in 8 years. This is a serious impact to businesses, for which commercial properties pay a tax rate which is four times the residential tax rate. These facts of the radical rise of property taxes are business killers, community vitality killers, and are steering the demographics of Chaffee County to be comprised of the non-working ultra wealthy and fewer and fewer options of businesses that make the community functional. How many of us are obtaining services from outside of Chaffee County because those services are increasingly not available in Chaffee County? We do not need another tax increase.

The Chaffee Housing Authority’s proposed project, Jane’s Place, is a very poor concept and design. This project is proposing multi-unit apartments, intended for housing for workers and families and also includes a shelter for the unhoused, as well as retail space which is subsidized by the government. The biggest problem with this design is the fact that persons utilizing shelter services often have substantial mental health care needs which makes this not a good idea to place a shelter for the unhoused into the midst of this very dense housing complex to have in the same condensed area with people trying to live normal lives, especially with children residing in this same very crammed development. The next biggest problem with this proposed development of Jane’s Place is the government-subsidized commercial space component. Here is the government taking your increased taxes and competing with businesses with this Jane’s Place development, especially with the subsidized commercial/retail space component of Jane’s Place.

We can easily solve the affordability of housing matter in Chaffee County without raising taxes one bit. Here are some ideas:

  1. Have you ever heard of the EPA Superfund site in Smeltertown? It was not cleaned up and this as a news item would make a substantial difference in the housing affordability problem in Chaffee County.
  2. The strip of land on the north side of the Arkansas River occupied by Union Pacific is a giant brownfield that sends toxic dust throughout Salida whenever the wind blows. Bringing these facts of environmental health concerns into the public eye is a way to create housing affordability.
  3. What if we raise taxes for CHA and then Union Pacific returns to operation? Suddenly, all that high-priced real estate along the Arkansas River and Railroad is not so nice anymore, the trails in the Arkansas Hills are much less accessible, and the sound of trains will drown out the many music and other events. We will then have a bigger problem of unaffordable taxes and no need whatsoever of subsidized housing.
  4. Have you ever been to Paonia, CO? I have and I discovered there is no cell service there. How about removing cellular phone service for Chaffee County - this would definitely help out with housing affordability. If you live in a home, do you really need cell service?
  5. I have visited 3 times a very lovely charming town that is in the mountains about 60 miles from Salt Lake City, Utah. The mountain views are gorgeous. There is an adorable historic downtown, comprised of many fine historic buildings. The schools are new and full of life. This town has beautiful, well-kept and modest homes of varying age and style. Housing is affordable in this town and taxes are very low. The population of this town agrees that the town exists for the people who live there. The downtown streets are quiet on Saturday, as most people are attending sporting events at the schools or partaking of basic activities of Saturday life. Business is conducted during the week. This town exists for the health and well-being of its residents. Jobs are plentiful and pay is commensurate with the cost of living. This town could easily resemble the mess that Buena Vista and Salida are currently, given its proximity to the city of Salt Lake and similar qualities of mountain living and charming historic town life. This town could easily destroy its affordability and character by selling its soul to the gobblers of nearby city dwellers, marketing this charming place by hosting and advertising events galore to invite the city dwellers to visit in the largest numbers possible, and hopefully get them to buy a second home or vacation rental. This Utah town is not doing that, however. What town in Utah is this you wonder? I would not dare mention it for the sake of respecting this gem of a place and the people who live there. Chaffee County has been selling its soul at a high cost to everyone who lives here and many wonderful past community members and businesses who moved away because Chaffee County has a small handful of loud persons who think that Chaffee County should be converted into the another place they came here from or really would rather live in.
  6. Last weekend, Chaffee County hosted a hazardous material collection event. I had planned to go, but was advised by family members to not go, because the waiting in line was about 2 hours to drop off one’s items. Apparently, one cannot dispose of hazardous waste in Chaffee County without this special collection event, and apparently, the last time one of these events was held was 2021. Chaffee County was once quite affordable to live in, and also in that era, there were many places on public lands where substantial piles of discarded items where left near dispersed campsites on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service and Chaffee County Roads. Chaffee County could simply return to this former practice and improve housing affordability.
  7. The county to the south of Chaffee County is exceptionally more affordable. Taxes are very low. Housing cost, whether to rent or purchase is approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of housing cost in Chaffee. Interestingly, there are not many big events in this county that are heavily marketed to places outside of the county, nor are there organizations advertising the recreation opportunities of the area, yet this county has actually more recreation opportunities than Chaffee County. Simply scaling back the amount of events and recreation facility investment and advertising to the same level as the county immediately to the south of Chaffee County could bring affordability of housing back to the level of our next-door neighboring county.

We do not need to spend one dime of taxpayer money to subsidize housing. The result is pure high cost and rising cost for everyone, and not just monetary costs, but also quality of life costs.

1 Like
6

Amanda,

Welcome to our community. Thank you for an excellent post. I hope you continue to contribute to the discourse.

1 Like