Wow, you guys really can't recognize tongue-in-cheek when you see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr
Though this leads to a question I have for you: It seems that the recent developments in Glendale and Aurora concerning the formation of metropolitan districts and how they are treated under TABOR raises all sorts of questions. Challenges to the the voting process seem to necessitate a change to how they are formed in order to make them legally defendable. Are cities going to have to start putting city employees in a trailer for 90 days or so on a site in order to show that the local voters approve of the district under TABOR?
|
I seriously doubt anything changes. This is only an issue in the formative stages of a District/development, when there aren't any real human voters to work with. Once there are people, it's a non-issue. It also never solves the problem in a commercial district - unless we want to take away the ability for development to tax itself, you have to maintain some mechanism to qualify non-resident voters in a non-residential project. Keep in mind, for all of the complaining about poor businesses not wanting to pay taxes, this is fundamentally a financing mechanism that allows development to tax itself and pay its own way. Is it inequitable that future businesses (or residents) pay more in taxes to finance their own growth? Maybe. But the alternative is for the City and current residents to fund it. It is a fiction to think that developers will pay for it all - in part, that'll get rolled into prices, so we all end up paying. And in part, the competition for development is strong, as are the incentives to subsidize it. Right now being "pro-business" (I'm talking to you, Aurora) means being pro-District. Take that away, and it'll mean direct subsidies paid by current residents. Colorado made a conscious decision to enable, and in some cases require, growth to "pay its own way." This is how we do it.
One possible solution to this specific problem (how to get voters in early Districts and commercial Districts) has been to allow for corporate voting - let the LLC vote, so you don't have to go through the farce of creating eligible voters. Problem is, you can't allow that only part of the time. And for all the complaining you hear now, imagine the outcry if the legislature considers a bill to give corporate entities voting right? Nobody has wanted to touch that with a ten foot pole. The status quo is preferable.