Donate to CHEC with your Year-End Giving Donate Now

Comments

  1. Mark ZumTobel says

    Thank you Carolyn, for your thoughtful and helpful condensation of the ballot issues. I will share them with the my bride and 2 of age voting sons of the home.

  2. Liz McCrea says

    It’s nice to find a simple breakdown of the issues on the ballot. I only have one objection and that is to your description of what amendment 74 is. It is not for property taken by the government. It’s for property that loses value as a result of a government law or regulation. That’s very different, and in my opinion, a dangerous road to go down.

  3. Cheryl Tadlock says

    Hi Carolyn,
    I respectfully request that you further research the implications of Prop 112 rather than repeating the profit-motivated position of the oil and gas industry. Yes Prop 112 will increase setbacks from oil and gas operations to 2500 feet in order to protect the health, safety and quality of life for citizens of Colorado. This makes sense because large scale industrial operations do not belong next door to homes and school playgrounds. We all saw a tragic example of this in last year’s Firestone explosion, but scientific research also continues to support this. One example: a Colorado School of Public Health study this year stated that “facilities emit air pollutants that are potentially a major health risk for nearby populations”. There are many more case studies and research citations available at http://www.coloradologic.org. I encourage you to review their website. Bottom line: Jobs don’t mean much without health, safety and quality of life. There are other ways to make money and horizontal drilling means reserves can be accessed from safer locations.
    Thanks

  4. Alan Crosby says

    As I understand it, Amendment 74 is NOT about Eminent Domain seizure of property, it’s about set backs and the value of property decreasing as a result of those actions. Am I misreading the amendment?

  5. Layne says

    Thank you for the quick summary of the amendments. If only this is how they were described in the booklet they sent. Happy to see the emphasis on the free market and state’s rights 🙂

  6. Katrina Little says

    I have often asked myself, “if by conservative do they mean prioritizing the rights and privileges of others while minimizing those of ethnic communities.” This “summary” answers that question completely and thoroughly.

      • Carolyn Martin says

        Conservatism is not about prioritizing the rights of any person or group of people over another. It is about adhering to the founding principles of free enterprise not government-controlled enterprise; capitalism not socialism; limited civil government not tyranny; personal responsibility and self-government not government lifetime dependency; securing God-given unalienable rights including conscience, life, property, and parental rights not taking away an individual’s rights; and equality under the rule-of-law not special privilege. We are all equal as American citizens and we all have equal value in God’s eyes. Conservatism stands firmly on those values.

        Y & Z would cement in our Constitution special classes of people with special privileges.

        • Katrina Little says

          While I can appreciate this textbook definition mixed with passion and privilege, I would consider compassion for those who may have experienced this “American” life differently from oneself to be of utmost importance .

  7. Richard says

    What you said about 74 is incorrect. You stated ”
    Amendment 74: Voting yes. Mandates just compensation for property taken by the government. [The government must pay fair market value for any land they take from a property owner.]

    That part of the law is already in place. The Amendment they want to add is effectively, if any government within the state does anything to lower your property value, by such things like building a road near your home, they must pay you the difference in property value (even is the road is needed for safety). This can open every city up to hundreds of lawsuits for any action they take. Every time they want to add a road, or anything else to improve the city for everyone else they will have to add new cost to that project, i.e. paying out money to a one and everyone that thinks they were effected. In turn this will either break the bank or raise your taxes.

  8. Carolyn Martin says

    Thank you all for your comments on this blog post! Your input is valuable as we all know that iron sharpens iron. While I admit that I could be wrong on any of these issues, I stand by my comments at this time. I hope that everyone reading this blog will make sure that they investigate these amendments and propositions for themselves before voting and remember that when in doubt, vote no.

Subscribe for Your 2 Free Downloads

* indicates required

 

 

 

 

 

You are subscribing to receive a free PDF download and email updates from CHEC.org. Your privacy is 100% guaranteed, and you can unsubscribe anytime.

 

 

Subscribe for your Free Download

* indicates required

 

 

 

 

 

You are subscribing to receive a free PDF download and email updates from CHEC.org. Your privacy is 100% guaranteed, and you can unsubscribe anytime.

 

 

Subscribe for the free Ebook

* indicates required

You are subscribing to receive a free PDF download and email updates from CHEC.org. Your privacy is 100% guaranteed, and you can unsubscribe anytime.

Subscribe for the free Starter Package

* indicates required

You are subscribing to receive two PDF downloads, access to an educational video course, and email updates from CHEC.org. Your privacy is 100% guaranteed, and you can unsubscribe anytime.