</em>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.
</em>Thanks to John Hazlehurst for the very detailed review of the array of ballot initiatives facing Colorado voters in November (“Amendments could change face of Colorado economy,” Sept. 19).
</em>The Sept. 12 CSBJ issue, HBA supplement with the headline and article “Here he goes again” by Scott Hente seems to be an extension of Mr. Hente’s personal regards for Doug Bruce.
Mr. Hente appears to be very concerned with the alleged effects of Bruce’s ballot measures. I believe that Mr. Hente must answer a few questions that the taxpayers of this community need truthful answers to.
</em>Sen. John McCain’s farsighted call for Western governor talks to cooperatively solve Western water shortages could soon bear fruit.
Innovative high-altitude, pumped-storage projects can efficiently solve most of the Western region’s renewable water and energy shortages, caused by explosive growth and highly variable droughts and climate change conditions.
</em>Councilman Scott Hente resorts to the old trick of diverting taxpayer attention to the “general fund” portion of the city budget, rather than the entire $360 million passing through council hands this year (up $13 million from last year). See www.CityReforms.com for the facts.
He says stormwater tax revenue should be ignored since council labeled it an “enterprise.”
</em>The city’s Street Division and Colorado Springs Utilities coordinate repair work as much as possible so that freshly paved streets don’t have to be cut for utilities work.
</em>RE: Letter by Scott Hente: “Bruce doesn’t have his facts straight about city finances”
Scott Hente seems to be telling the abbreviated story in regards to real revenue and costs to operate the city.
Let’s start with the PLIT (payment in lieu of taxes). I would venture to say that it is illegal as it violates the intent of the law.
</em>Douglas Bruce is purposely misleading your readers with his July 18 letter to the editor “Enterprise reform petitions will benefit residents.” His letter was full of inaccuracies and deception.
In talking about a city budget of $360 million, he neglects to mention that number includes $122.5 million in funds not available for general fund spending.
</em>RE: Page 20 — July 18, 2008, edition
It’s interesting that the referenced page has two articles with which I disagree.
First, “Letter to the Editor” from State Rep. Douglas Bruce.
Law in the State of Colorado requires anyone who changes the normal flow of water and causes damage to someone downstream to be held liable for that damage.
Your CSBJ editorial would have been more effectual had it been more factual. It’s a shame your defense of Big Government and illegal city taxes was published on Independence Day, which was sparked by a tax revolt against much lower colonial levies.
First, there are no “cuts” in the 10-year phase-out of the secret “substitute tax” the city now collects on utility bills.