Making a case for 200, 201

Dear Editor,
I disagree with the CSBJ 9/26 editorial attacking Douglas Bruce’s petitions to end the stormwater tax and the hidden utility tax.
First, you called issues 200 and 201 charter amendments. They are ordinary ordinances. You say “property taxes are declining,” when revenue is rising. Issue 201 is phased in over 10 years, so citing today’s slow revenue growth is misleading.
Second, Douglas Bruce hardly thinks government “does too little.” He thinks it is bloated, wasteful and intrusive, and so do I.
Third, canceling a stormwater tax that did not exist two years ago will not “starve the city.” It will require the council to ask us before it takes our money, as required by law. “Consent of the governed” — is that another radical concept you scorn?
Fourth, ending an illegal tax won’t “halt economic growth for years to come.” Did the Soviet Union prosper from government control of its economy? No.
Fifth, less than half the “fees” go for stormwater projects. A majority goes for bureaucratic overhead. The official stormwater budget summary is at
Sixth, what if we keep the tax and Pueblo still doesn’t play ball on the Southern Delivery System? What then? Should we pay higher taxes forever to hope Pueblo politicians will “feel good” about us?
If we don’t get this very expensive pork, which raises our water rates greatly, you warn we might have to conserve water. Oh the horror!
We already have enough water for a city of more than 1 million people. Do you want to become the Los Angeles of the Rockies? I don’t.
That’s another reason to vote YES on 200 and 201.
Helen P. Collins, Colorado Springs