< PREVIOUS ] [ 1996 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Pick up a pile of GOP propaganda, and you will
eventually read words to the effect that the Republican
Party is committed to local control.
In Colorado, that means we believe in local control
as long as we control the locals.
More than 20 years ago, the legislature gave Colorado counties strong zoning powers with HB 1041. Counties could enact strict zoning, or take a lassez-faire approach, or steer some middle course -- this was local control, and if you didn't like it, the decision-makers were as close as the courthouse.
However, Colorado Springs and Aurora wanted to grab some water from Eagle County with the Homestake II project. Eagle County zoning halted the project.
The cities of the plain took Eagle County to court, arguing that the county exceeded its authority. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld Eagle County's HB 1041 zoning powers.
Did the Republicans in our legislature hail this victory for local control?
Not exactly. They have a problem with local control if it interferes with the ability of Front Range developers to amass money for campaign contributions.
When the cities didn't get what they wanted in court, they turned to the legislature, where Sen. Tom Norton, a Greeley Republican, got SB 48 passed in the Senate.
In essense, SB 48 removes zoning powers from rural counties if the zoning interferes with the divine rights of Front Range cities.
There is the argument that HB 1041 is good for strictly local matters, but something that interferes with a water diversion is not strictly local.
This is somewhat sensible, but if distant cities get to interfere with rural zoning when it affects the cities, then rural areas should have a say on urban zoning when it affects the hinterlands.
For instance, every time El Paso County approves another development, or Aurora sprawls farther toward Kansas, that means more people to clog Chaffee County's back roads, campgrounds and fishing holes on a given weekend.
When crime or congestion or smog gets more intense in urban Colorado -- that is, whenever a Front Range city grows -- more people are tempted to move to 35-acre ranchettes in the boondocks.
So, when the House takes up SB 48, I hope that the
representatives amend the bill so that both sides are
represented. It would be only fair if a rural area could
veto an urban development by noting that Another 10,000
people there means 700 more ranchette owners, which exceeds
our school capacity, so we have to turn this down.
This will never happen, of course. Sensible proposals get as far in the Colorado General Assembly as I would in a marathon.
For instance, the legislature just killed a proposed bill which would have required warning notices on new houses whose water comes from diminishing aquifers. If it had passed, the proud owner of a new house in Douglas or Elbert county would have due notice the area has only a 100-year supply of water.
(The result of failing to give the warning is predictable: Thousands of people will build there, and their heirs and assigns will form a potent political force to grab water from some other drainage when their wells go dry.)
One opponent, Sen. Dave Wattenberg, said homebuyers have the sophistication to ask about their water supply, and so a warning is unnecessary.
How sophisticated are Colorado homebuyers? Let us ponder Durango, where coal-burning locomotives have been in continuous operation since about 1881.
Coal smoke isn't like underground water -- you can see it and smell it without any special effort. You'd think that anyone who considered moving to Durango would be aware of locomotive smoke, and if the fumes were troubling, the prospective Durangan would move somewhere else.
But such thoughts would miss the imbecility of the South Durango Homeowners Association, which on Feb. 28 asked the Colorado Department of Health to investigate the Durango & Silverton Railroad because coal smoke perturbs their delicate sensibilities.
The coal smoke was there long before they were. If they missed it while inspecting their homesites, they must be so insensate that they'd miss a three-alarm fire at a creosote plant. They're the same kind of people who buy houses by an airport and then complain about noise.
So Wattenberg is dead wrong about homebuyer sophistication. If these latter-day Durangans are any indication, the average Colorado homebuyer has the IQ of a turnip, and our legislature should look into requiring an intelligence test of prospective Colorado residents.
Given current trends, that should solve our growth problems, and we wouldn't have to worry about SB 48. There would be plenty of water to go around if we restricted Colorado residency to IQ's that at least reach the double digits.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1996 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >