In his Nov. 11 column, "Development myth leads to tax hikes," Dave Gardner used the same recycled and inaccurate assertions he has made here for many years. Linking recent requests for tax hikes to development not paying its way has been argued in the past - and discredited.

Consider this. A new home indeed creates new capital costs. The resident who buys it pays the capital infrastructure costs of water lines, roads, and other capital components.

Colorado Springs has transparently and accountably created a credible "user pay" system.
The costs new development creates should be paid by that development. In one way or another, the new home buyer pays for those costs.

In many ways, because new communities and businesses need fewer repair services for streets, etc., the government's often have a net gain from new development.

Once they've purchased a new home, the home's residents, most often already existing city residents, pay the taxes, fees and other charges to maintain what their new home benefits from. Intuitively, if the new home owner isn't paying enough to maintain public safety or the stormwater facilities they benefit from, then no resident is. They all pay the same; they get roughly the same level of service. It is adequate or it is not.

And the elections we vote in are discussions about whether it is enough, whether we need to pay more, or in some cases, nothing at all. My assertion? The El Paso County resident is shortchanging their part of the social contract in the community's commonwealth. That includes me.

Current residents were recently asked to maintain adequate funding for the sheriff's office to keep our jail safe and functional, our streets patrolled and to maintain the infrastructure they use every day.

It is not growth causing this problem; it is inadequate funding by the current residents to maintain the quality of life that is lacking.

Development fees have subsidized water rates for several years; in fact, the lack of growth and the loss of the subsidy creates an increased, but proper, cost to today's ratepayers to keep the system operating.

The larger issue Gardner drives at is whether growth is making society more prosperous.

On its face, the assertion that it is not is preposterous. We are certainly not growing today, as a country or a community. Do you feel more prosperous today? I doubt it.

As a philosophical concept, we intuitively know that growth makes society more prosperous and our communities better. Growth and innovation and change improved our lives incrementally from the Colorado Springs of 50 years ago.

Water is cleaner to drink, air is cleaner to breathe, our lives are better for the pursuit of growth and improvement. Imagine The Broadmoor hotel as a single building, imagine Colorado College playing hockey in the old World Arena, imagine not having a new Fine Arts Center, and fantastic new displays at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. Leave them the same as 20, 30 or 40 years ago? Don't grow, don't innovate, and don't improve? That is not the community I live in.

Imagine the house of yesteryear not changing and improving. We now have homes that are more efficient through the use of new technologies including water and energy conserving devices that help our whole community. We are changing and growing and improving everyday in our industry.

As always, the debate and discussion is worthwhile and will lead to us to better decisions.

Join The Gazette in its Dream City project. Get involved with City Council elections.

Join the discussion. Be a part of the community. But don't accept assertions just because they are in the newspaper.

-

Walker is vice president of Nor'wood Development Group in Colorado Springs.

I happen to be one who believes we need the defeated countywide sales tax increase.

While the election is behind us, 2009 city and county budgets are yet to be balanced, and we face a future that offers the certainty of both death and taxes. In fact, there is already talk of tax increases on the next ballots.

Tax increases seem to be a fact of life. Why is that? Haven't we just experienced a turbocharged 15-year growth boom? Yet local backlogs and budget crunches didn't appear suddenly with the economic meltdown. Backlogs have been festering and budget struggles present throughout that 15-year boom.

You'd think, if prosperity from growth were more than just an urban legend, we'd be enjoying tax reductions as our metro area doubles its population every 30 to 40 years. We could expect fewer fees, ever-improving service levels, and even declining utility bills. Yet our experience is clearly to the contrary.

Apparently we've left economies of scale behind, and reached a size where expansion brings diseconomies. Now growth requires disproportionate increases in service and infrastructure. Add the mounting cost of growth subsidies we allow in our quest for that elusive growth-induced prosperity, and here we sit.

Our mayor seems, on the one hand, to understand. Just last week he said, "As the community continues to grow ... we're going to have to have some other kind of funding." Yet on the other hand he promotes and celebrates growth as though it will magically give us a magnificent return on our investment. Past performance offers no rational basis for that hope.

Get used to it.

So far, citizens have refused to insist our city and county assess growth for its true costs.

We haven't replaced officials who continue or increase public subsidies of new development. If we won't require growth to pay its own way, then residents have no choice but to cover those costs ourselves. That means a steady stream of tax increases and utility rate hikes for a long, long time.

How did we get into this mess? Like most communities we've bought into the myth we must grow or die. Most of us believe, even if we hate the congestion, noise, crime and rudeness, that growth is necessary for prosperity. Growth does provide some prosperity, unfortunately these riches flow to growth industry millionaires - the result of privatizing the profits from growth while socializing the costs.

For example, the growth industry led the charge for the proposed sales tax increase. A developer led the campaign to preserve the Stormwater Enterprise. Growth boosters chant we must invest to have a quality community. Simultaneously they lobby for lower taxes for themselves, for economic development incentives (which boost commercial and residential real estate development), for subsidized utility connection fees, and for urban renewal development subsidies. It seems they want us to invest in our community, not them.

For our community, the evidence doesn't support this "prosperity from growth" myth.

We have crumbling bridges, insufficient stormwater management, failing sewer lines, traffic congestion delay more than tripled, broken streetlights, and school districts begging for tax increases. City and county budgets are strained serving more people with revenue that isn't increasing fast enough. If new arrivals are paying their way, if growth equals prosperity, if our growth-based economic development strategy is working, why don't we have the money to fund our needs?

So now local governments are strapped. Something has to go. Sadly the last thing they will cut is millions of dollars in growth subsidies. They consider these necessary to revive the growth boom. This would be the same growth that did not solve the financial challenges last time. It created most of them. But this time will be different.

These are investments in a system that has been failing us. The evidence is right before our eyes, but the growth/prosperity mythology clouds our vision. Growth may have led to community-wide prosperity at one time. That time has passed.

Will citizens insist these subsidies be cut before gutting transit, police, fire, snowplowing, health, parks and other valued services? History would indicate they will not. So get ready for the next tax increase.

-

Gardner is founder and chair of SaveTheSprings. Its Website is www.savethesprings.org. Readers can contact him at dave@savethesprings.org.

When Chris Hill was honorably discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps in 1982, he made sure to remove the medical records in his permanent file about his visits to a psychiatrist.

Hill, who was experiencing severe anxiety attacks, was afraid to be labeled as a veteran with psychiatric problems.

"I was embarrassed about it at the time," says Hill, who now works as a mental health counselor for the Jefferson Center for Mental Health in Wheat Ridge.

"There was a stigma in my own mind about it being bad to get psychiatric help. As a Marine, I didn't want to appear weak."

Research shows that Hill's trepidation about receiving psychiatric care is not unique among members of the armed forces. A 2004 study of 6,000 military men and women involved in ground combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan found that of those whose responses indicated a mental health problem, only 23 percent to 40 percent sought psychiatric help. Many who did not seek treatment cited fear of being stigmatized as a reason.

For veterans like those from El Paso County who return home with physical and mental scars, their wounds can present particular challenges for years to come. The wars overseas rarely make front-page news these days, but the wars still loom large for families left behind during tours of duty and dealing with the war's aftermath in the form of veterans returning with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and substance abuse.

Nearly 300,000 veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from either post-traumatic stress or depression, according to a recent study by the RAND Corporation.

The Department of Veterans Affairs says mental health is the second largest area of illness for veterans of these wars.

Some of these troubled veterans seek help here at Pikes Peak Behavioral Health Group, part of a network of community mental health centers nationwide. These centers' deep roots in the community make them well suited to counsel veterans by engaging churches, synagogues, schools and other community stalwarts to become involved in a holistic approach that treats the veteran's entire family.

Soon more veterans may be able to receive counseling from community-based organizations. On Oct. 10, President Bush signed "The Veterans Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008" into law.

The new law directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to contract with community-based healthcare organization to provide mental health services in rural areas in which access to VA services is inadequate.

But we should not expect mental health professionals to go it alone. Everyone has a role to play to help veterans overcome the stigma of mental illness.

A few easy ways to help veterans overcome the stigma of mental illness include:

• Talk about your family's experiences with mental illnesses and addictions as you would about other medical conditions. Mental illnesses and addictions need to come fully out of the closet.

• Decide to become literate about mental illnesses and addictions. Read and ask questions about these conditions and look for courses on mental health literacy in your community.

• Support veterans groups and your local mental health center's efforts to make mental health and addictions treatment available in every community.

On this Veterans Day, whether we are a veteran, family member, friend, co-worker or simply a concerned citizen, we all need to make sure we continue to fight the stigma attached to seeking mental health treatment.

We need to do go the extra yard to ensure that veterans who may be suffering from mental illnesses receive the help they need.

-

Roth is president & CEO of Pikes Peak Behavioral Health Group.

When did "business leaders" begin carrying the mail for unions? Who, in our business community, decided to get in bed with organized labor and campaign together to defeat Amendments 47, 49 and 54? And why?

Amendments 47, 49, and 54 are good for everyone. They will give workers both rights and choice. Amendment 47 will allow employees to choose for themselves whether they want to be dues-paying members of a union; Amendment 49 will protect public employees' paychecks; and Amendment 54 will prohibit lobbying by those receiving no-bid government contracts. They are all clean government initiatives that are unique in that they favor both business and labor, while shielding workers from union intimidation. And they are good for economic development, making our communities more attractive for employment and investment.

The Gazette published a column from two Denver businessmen asking readers to oppose Amendments 47, 49 and 54. They just raised $3 million to give to the unions to defeat these three good-government, common-sense, economically sound initiatives. Why?

Because they were blackmailed by the same union thugs with whom they are now in collusion.

Rather than working collaboratively to provide more and better jobs for their members, big labor put four radical, job-killing, economy-destroying "poison pill" amendments on the ballot, refusing to remove them until "business leaders" gave them $3 million to fight 47, 49 and 54. It was an old-fashioned shakedown.

Extortion is just that - extortion. Some of us in business opposed paying this ransom on the basis of principle, while others opposed paying this ransom because it is guaranteed - absolutely guaranteed - to generate the opportunity to do it again. And who's to say that those four poison-pill amendments would have passed anyway? Regardless, Amendments 47, 49 and 54 are good for Colorado and deserve to be supported.

Gov. Bill Ritter had the opportunity to prevent all of this unnecessary and expensive bloodshed. All he had to do was rescind his executive order that gave state employees the right to collectively bargain.

And all these "business leaders" had to do was convince him that blackmail is not the way we conduct business or politics in Colorado. But despite his seductive campaign rhetoric about being pro business, he confirmed, yet again, that he is bought and paid for by the unions.

Regrettably, these same Denver "business leaders," while well intentioned, have sold out to these same unions.

Amendment 49 is endorsed by virtually every major newspaper in Colorado, representing varied, and in some instances polarized, ideologies. Could you even imagine The Gazette agreeing with the Boulder Daily Camera, or The Denver Post agreeing with the Rocky Mountain News? How about being endorsed by the Denver and Colorado Springs Chambers of Commerce as well as the Colorado Farm Bureau?

When support for Amendment 49 is so broad and deep, one must wonder why the unions are so vehemently opposed. Are they afraid that workers will not choose to become members without a protected right to coerce them? If membership is so attractive, what are they worrying about? And what is wrong with having public sector employees keep control of their paychecks?

If you believe in individual choice and employee empowerment, support Amendments 47, 49 and 54. Those television ads you see that claim that firefighters, teachers, and other hard working individuals will not be able to do their jobs if these amendments pass are blatantly inaccurate, dishonest and meant to appeal to your worst fears. In fact, the featured firefighter belongs to his union by choice. How deceitful of him to deny that same right to others.

Amendments 47, 49, and 54 will give these very individuals more control, more choice, more power, and more rights. What more could you, or they, want?

-

Schuck, of Colorado Springs, is a business leader and developer.

Amendment 48, the Personhood Amendment, is about empowering you, the voter. It's about allowing the democratic process to make decisions that have been made by special interest groups for the past 40 years while using your taxes for their own gain. It's about catching our laws up to our science. It's about restoring the intrinsic value of every human being, no matter what age.

The Personhood Amendment doesn't redefine a word in our constitution, as its opponents claim; it merely clarifies the definition of "person." This clarification is necessary because when the original state constitution was written, the biological information we now have available didn't exist. This left an ambiguity that has been seized by special interests for their own purposes. The same special interests tried to keep Amendment 48 off the ballot. They claim they want choice, but they don't want to allow Colorado voters to decide this issue.

The Personhood Amendment isn't an attack on women's health care. Mothers also possess personhood and the amendment in no way endangers their well-being. Doctors and families are always allowed to choose to save the one life they can instead of doing nothing and letting two people die. Amendment 48 merely provides a common-sense foundation for making future decisions.

Unless our laws are built on honest premises and sound science, we continue down a slippery slope in which confusion reigns. In the past few decades, the personhood of the unborn has been confiscated. The door is opening for taking away the lives and dignity of the elderly, sick and disabled, unless we act now.

On Sept. 8, I debated opponents of Amendment 48 on a Colorado Decides segment linked on www.personhood2008.org. Fofi Mendez, who represented the "No on 48 campaign," was asked when life begins. She answered, "Individually, we can all determine when life begins." In other words, each person decides. For Mendez, "life" includes being able to breathe and walk. This leaves out newborn babies and anyone in a wheelchair or on a respirator. Her response is simply further expression of the confused, stale, outdated abortion politics that have dominated recent decades. People are tired of that. We need to value every person because every person counts, no matter what age.

Mendez kept alluding to the consequences of Amendment 48 as "disconcerting." People my age realize a third of our generation has been aborted. That's disconcerting. Requiring legislators to take into account the personhood of every individual is not disconcerting.

It's long overdue.

Mendez continually pointed out that 75 "health care" organizations oppose Amendment 48. No doubt Planned Parenthood is included. At last count, more than 85 organizations and medical professionals support personhood.

Many of those Colorado medical professionals agree that our opposition's claims are far-fetched and simply not true. Our opposition continues to scare and deceive voters because it would rather hide from the truth. In fact, we recently discovered that Planned Parenthood - the largest funder backing our opposition - has received $4.5 million of taxpayer money from the state of Colorado just this year. No wonder it can spend nearly $1.4 million lying to the voters about Amendment 48. And they use your tax dollars to do it.

The words we choose matter. Our opposition continually refers to newly formed persons as "fertilized eggs." The repeated use of the term robs the developing human of personhood, just as the word "fetus" dehumanizes a developing baby.

It shouldn't matter if you vote Republican or Democrat or if you are Christian or atheist, we all have a responsibility to protect innocent life. Colorado voters have an unprecedented opportunity to do that by acknowledging what we know to be true. Vote yes on 48.

-

Burton is the sponsor and spokesperson for the Personhood Amendment.

In four years of writing this column, I've never written about abortion. I hoped I wouldn't have to. But next week's election changes the picture. I urge citizens of Colorado to vote no on Amendment 48. A blastocyte is not a person. Voting can't make it so. It can, however, make our state a worse place to live.

I'm very familiar with the arguments behind 48. Life is sacred. Science says life begins at conception. Somebody needs to speak for the fetus. If abortion remains legal, we will eventually become a society that exterminates the mentally and physically inferior, followed eventually by the end of morality and the lack of respect for all life anywhere.

None of these arguments is compelling. All are outweighed by the terrible consequences of requiring the law to treat a zygote like a human being.

The reason abortion is controversial is not because the devil is at work in the world. Nor is it because people choose to complicate a simple issue.

The reason is very simple: To people not already convinced by faith, it is not self-evident that an embryo deserves the same legal status as a person. That's really all there is to it.
After all, can something be called a person if it can only survive inside an adult human?

What if it has no brain waves? No emotions? No ability to feel pain? Does a person die when a collection of cells is expelled from a woman, solely because her body unconsciously detected that something was wrong? Why do we call that "miscarriage," and not "accidental death"?

I am sorry to be so direct, as these words will offend some readers. While I mean every one of them, I am also a father of two who was present at the birth of his children. I share every parent's sense of the wonder and joy of how new life is brought into the world.

That sense, I think, ought to lead us to the right understanding of Amendment 48. An embryo is not a person, but neither is it mere protoplasm. It is a potential person.

What is it, then, that turns a potential person into an actual person, one deserving of protection under the law? I would suggest that it is the love of the one on whom its life depends, and her desire to bring it into the world.

This isn't exactly unprecedented. Love and nurturing are what enable all of us to become fully human. People who do not receive it behave like frightened or angry animals, and are often exhibit animal-like behavior.

It is also consistent with the genuine love that I believe many backers of Amendment 48 feel for each and every aborted fetus. They see potential persons as actual persons because of their love. They know that it is love that makes the difference.

But the proper response under such circumstances is persuasion, not force. Persuade women to love their unwanted fetuses enough to carry them to term. It's a free country, the First Amendment protects your right to talk.

In fact, armed with the courage of your convictions, you can treat all embryos inside you as people. When it comes to your uterus, you can make Amendment 48 the law of the land. Who knows, that might get you a vice presidential nomination.

But extending that purely theological-based view to other women who don't share it goes too far. It would make women mere breeding hosts for potential persons, it would send desperate women underground when they need lawful, quality care the most, and it would create a horrible bureaucratic and legal quagmire from which society would never recover.

Someday, technology will solve this problem. With enough time and research, we'll be able to transfer potential persons out of the bodies of the women who don't want them into the bodies of those who do. If the pro-life movement would spend a tenth of the money on embryo transplantation research that it currently spends trying to ban abortion, that day will come a lot sooner.

But until then, we must live with the imperfections of a world where potential persons can come into being in the bodies of women who may not want them there. The decision of what to do next must rest with them. Vote no on Amendment 48.

-

Fagin, of Colorado Springs, is a senior fellow at the Independence Institute. The views expressed here are his alone, and not necessarily those of the Independence Institute. His column appears on alternate Thursdays. Readers can e-mail him at
barry@faginfamily.net.

What if I told you that there is an energy resource in Colorado that is greater than all the oil in Saudi Arabia? And what would you say if I told you that some politicians want to strangle it before it ever comes online?

The amount of oil in Colorado's oil shale lands is almost beyond comprehension, with estimates ranging from one-half to 2 trillion barrels. The Rand Corporation says the mid-point of estimates for recoverable oil from shale, 800 billion barrels, is three times that of Saudi Arabia. This would satisfy the U.S. demand for imported oil of 10 million barrels a day for 200 years. Though some oil shale is found in Utah and Wyoming, the lion's share is in Colorado, and most of it is on public land.

I was able to tour an industry research project on the Western slope the other day, in Rio Blanco County, about 50 miles north of Rifle. Shell Oil Company is testing the commercial viability of its "in situ conversion process" in the Mahogany formation.

"In situ" literally means "in place." Rather than excavating the richest oil shale deposits from the ground to be processed and heated above ground, the heat is taken underground to the oil shale deposits. This keeps the air much cleaner and eliminates the problem of tailings. The deposits in Colorado are anywhere from 500 to 1,000 feet underground, and are about that thick.

Heaters are placed within the formation by being lowered into holes drilled for that purpose. Over time, the heat alters the actual oil-bearing substance, a precursor to crude oil called kerogen. It undergoes partial refining to become similar to the lighter, more desirable petroleum derivatives like kerosene, diesel and jet fuel. Finally, it gathers in pockets where it can be extracted by conventional oil pumping.

An innovation Shell is testing at the Mahogany site is the use of freeze walls. Freeze walls have been used many times in the past for construction and mining projects. A frozen barrier is formed around the area being heated to protect the surrounding groundwater from contamination.

With oil prices what they are, the company believes that this process will be economically viable on a commercial scale, given the demand for oil in the future.

Several companies are researching other recovery processes, but Shell's is the furthest along today.

With this vast energy potential, rivaling Saudi Arabia, why would anyone in their right mind want to stifle it just as it is getting off the ground, especially because Colorado would greatly benefit from the tax revenues? Yet that is exactly what Rep. Mark Udall attempted to do just last year. Udall introduced an amendment to the Department of Interior appropriations bill setting up a moratorium on oil shale activity for the first time ever. The amendment, which passed by a narrow margin, prevented federal regulators from finalizing rules for leases. Fortunately, it expired on Oct. 1.

The reason Udall gave for the moratorium was that the environmental concerns had not all been addressed. This is nonsense. Regulators had not even written the final regulations yet. Those who are writing them are well aware of the need to comply with our nation's strict environmental rules. In any case, it was massive overkill.

This is the worst possible time to shut down the development of this huge energy resource. We have all experienced how high energy prices can damage our lives and the economy. We are also all aware of the national security need for energy independence.
More than that, it is fundamentally unfair to change the rules at the last minute on companies when they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing new technology.

Although the oil shale moratorium is gone for now, Coloradans need to think carefully about what can happen in January. Will we have politicians in Washington who make the special interests of a vocal minority a higher priority than the need for an adequate energy supply and a strong economy? Available energy from oil shale benefits all Americans, and especially all Coloradans.

-

Lamborn, of Colorado Springs, represents Colorado's 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Despite all the reassurances that money from the pockets of additional Fort Carson soldiers will help our local economy miraculously recover, not one day passes without dreadful budget predictions and fear rhetoric about dramatic service cutbacks for our city and county. Save the Storm-water Enterprise before the Grinch, Douglas Bruce, steals your city! And hand over that extra penny in sales tax to avoid cutting police, heath inspectors and firefighters. If not, there will be hell to pay - people will die from crime, fires and dirty tattoo needles spreading AIDS!

At least that's what many of our leaders and nonprofit initiatives want you to believe. In reality, they want you to vote for their own financial welfare and keep their loyal puppets in government doing their bidding.

When seeking parallels to the irresponsible leadership of recent years, only the Wall Street meltdown and the Titanic debacle come readily to mind. Without fail, our local governments hit their iceberg trying to meet new-growth speed records.

Fellow citizens, the time is near to reject the city and county governments' Band-Aid solutions resembling the Titanic's band playing as the ship slipped below the icy surface of the Atlantic. Let's learn our lessons for future generations and make necessary permanent changes to ensure that future ships carry enough lifeboats for emergencies and have crews that are trained to avoid the obvious dangers.

The upcoming election is an opportunity to let go of blind political party allegiances. Politics and war are too important to be treated as team sports. Force Democratic "tax-and-spend" types and their Republican "backdoor-fee" counterparts to acknowledge they work for you. Take charge and replace incapable leadership that jeopardizes your values and standard of living.

Demand our candidates and elected officials tackle the most critical issues for the nation - the failing economy and a perpetual war that drains our coffers and undermines our international leadership standing. Tell our leaders to pull that belt tighter and stop using fear tactics to press taxpayers into panic and acquiescence. Let our officials know that taxpayers will no longer tolerate elaborate project studies, CEO bonuses, bridges to nowhere and expensive legal buyouts for misconduct cases. Reiterate that it's OK for leaders to keep old furniture, buildings and vehicles until better times return. Tell them you'll no longer accept being bypassed by hiding taxes as fees you should be able to vote on.

If you're a liberal voter and believe in your responsibility to make this country and the world a better place for future generations, vote for candidates who have a plan to do so - but don't settle for only hope. Demand a precise budget plan that supports the "hope initiatives" without causing another financial meltdown.

If you are a true conservative, demand conservative spending habits in addition to protecting constitutional values and traditions. Demand the enforcement of accepted laws against all those who blatantly violate them.

If you're an independent voter, vote for whomever you believe is most qualified, regardless of party. I know that's extremely difficult given the limited choices for president but at the local and state levels, it might be feasible to give a chance to courageous third-party candidates from the middle and working classes.

Christian voters should actually consider what Jesus would do! Do remember that he was a man of peace and never aspired to having superfluous possessions. He loved his fellow man, the earth and respected individualism. On second thought, that might have qualified Jesus as an American Indian, as one old warrior once remarked when being lectured on the superiority of the white man's religion. With that thought in mind, it may be quite OK for Christians to vote for someone with a more diverse background.

As some politicians claim, the upcoming election cycles might truly be about taking back our country from the existing political monopolies. Starting in November, send a clear message that you're not going to tolerate mediocre main party candidates just because they can pay their way.

Even if mad party operatives brand you a terrible spoiler, vote your conscience!

-

Zimmermann is a former Army officer and decorated Desert Storm veteran. He writes and speaks on diverse military and international affairs topics. Zimm's e-mail is r6zimm@earthlink.net.

As the national economic crisis grows worse by the day, and hundreds of thousands of Americans stand to lose their livelihood, now is not the time to upset the economic balance that has prevailed in Colorado for the past 60 years.

However, a number of divisive measures on this year's ballot - amendments 47, 49, and 54 - have threatened this balance and would undermine our strong economy, which has allowed the state to attract jobs and investment. Recognizing the threat posed by these amendments, an unprecedented coalition of Colorado's business community, labor leaders, and elected officials have come together to oppose these three measures. If the narrow, ideological agenda in these amendments prevails, it would dismiss the best interests of Colorado.

In arguing for the passage of Amendment 47, known as right-to-work, The Gazette referenced CNBC's most recent survey of America's Top States for Business and pointed to the fact that 10 of the 12 states best for businesses are right-to-work states. It failed to mention however, that Colorado is ranked the 7th best state for business in the nation, and outpaces five of the six neighboring states that have right-to-work laws in place.

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce has pointed out that Colorado's competitiveness and job growth is equal or better than many right-to-work states.

Not only does Amendment 47 pit businesses against their employees, but it's superfluous to existing law. Federal law already prohibits an employer from requiring union membership as a condition of employment, and Colorado's 1943 Labor Peace Act makes it nearly impossible to coerce workers into joining unions or paying agency fees against their will.

The Gazette admitted that Amendment 49, the paycheck protection measure, is a "conflict few in Colorado wanted to see." In this it is correct - Amendment 49 is the result of a narrow, special-interest agenda that targets the rights of public employees in Colorado, including law enforcement officials, firefighters and teachers, who provide vital services.

Amendment 49 will interfere with the personal choice of working Coloradans over how they want to spend their hard-earned paychecks. Private businesses let employees deduct portions of their pay, like health insurance premium payments and contributions to nonprofit charities such as the United Way. Our firefighters, nurses, teachers and law enforcement should not be excluded from having deductions made from their paychecks just because of the profession they choose.

Finally, Amendment 54 is poorly written and potentially violates court rulings that protect free speech. Amendment 54 would prohibit any person (or family member of anyone) who works on a single-source government contract from contributing to a candidate or advocating for an issue at any level for the length of the contract and for two years after.

Amendment 54 could especially affect small business in rural areas of the state where single-source contracts are common - not because of government "kickbacks," but because there are simply fewer vendors in such areas to compete for bids.

This measure goes too far, is unnecessary, and it unfairly silences the voices of small businesses in the political process.

If passed, any or all of these amendments would shift the balance business and labor leaders in Colorado have maintained for 60 years. The current structure preserves our state's economic stability and allows for the greatest amount of flexibility.

Colorado's business, labor, and political leaders agree that dividing communities and interfering in the relationship between employers and employees won't help our state. Instead of pushing dangerous ideological agendas, Coloradans should be working together to kick-start our economy and grow good-paying jobs.

Vote no on amendments 47, 49 and 54.

-

Hamill is the chairman and CEO of Oakwood Homes. Isenberg is the president and CEO of Sage Hospitality. Both are members of Colorado Concern and Colorado Businesses for Sensible Solutions.

Although I have lived in Colorado Springs for 32 years, I have never run for political office. Nonetheless, in 2007, I announced my candidacy for the Colorado state Senate in District 12. My decision might seem surprising, even idealistic, given the make-up of the district and my opponent. However, I see the serious challenges we face as a community, challenges which require us to set aside partisan divisions and work together. I offer a clear alternative to the politics of the past.

For those of you who don't know me, allow me a brief introduction. I have been a business owner, practicing lawyer and lifetime community volunteer. Attending the Wharton School, working for Holly Sugar and operating small businesses, I learned the power of the free-market economy. I know how to live within a budget, make forecasts and read a balance sheet. As a practicing lawyer for more than 25 years, I understand the legal environment, both civil and criminal. Community service with Pikes Peak Mental Health, School District 11's budget committee, Silver Key, the Pikes Peak and Manitou Springs restorative justice councils, among others, has shown me the economic and social needs facing our people.

I am running for the Colorado Senate as a nonpolitician. I embrace Thomas Jefferson's concept of part-time citizen legislators bringing their experience from the community, not career politicians. The divisive partisan politics of the past have not served our community's interests. I represent a moderate, non-ideological and reasonable alternative.

My commitment is to building consensus for practical long-term solutions for the best interests of our entire community. I am open minded, listen to others and am receptive to new ideas. I will bring a different perspective, a new way of thinking, to the Colorado Legislature.

The success of my approach was proven by the passage of HB08-1117, Restorative Justice in the Children's Code. I drafted the bill as a private citizen with help from the district attorney, juvenile magistrates, and children's and victim's advocates. It received bipartisan support and passed by a vote of 99-1. The bill requires young offenders to take full responsibility for their offenses and repair the harm they caused while enabling victims to participate in setting consequences. Ninety-three percent of kids who completed the program have not re-offended. It breaks the cycle of juvenile crime.

Restorative justice represents a new way of thinking. It is a bipartisan approach that works for kids, victims and the community.

Our most significant challenge is the economy. We are in uncharted territory. Thousands of high-tech jobs have been replaced by lower-paying retail and service jobs. Local governments, facing growing population and infrastructure needs, confront increased demands for service with diminishing resources. Unfunded mandates from the state further impact local government and schools.

These challenges will not be resolved if we are tied to inflexible ideological philosophies from the past. To address them, we need innovative thinking and collaborative problem solving, the very approaches I employed to pass the restorative justice bill. I am committed to working cooperatively with small businesses, local government and economic development officials to move our community toward sustainable funding and economic prosperity.

It is a distinct and humbling honor that this community has so enthusiastically embraced my campaign. In an unprecedented demonstration of bipartisan support, three dozen local Republican leaders have endorsed my candidacy. They are joined by scores of elected officials, educators and other community leaders. They recognize my bipartisan approach, my rejection of ideological partisanship and my history of effective and sensible problem solving. The vast majority of my supporters are El Paso County voters.

They are teachers, firefighters, veterans, clerks, seniors, business people, retirees, parents and grandparents. They share my vision of families living, working and recreating in a safe and diverse community which cherishes, protects and expands civil rights, personal choice, economic opportunity and personal responsibility. They share my goals of achieving world class fully funded public schools, affordable, accessible and comprehensive health care, restorative justice, a clean environment, reliance on renewable energy and a capitalist system which provides economic opportunities by encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit.

Please read more about my background and positions at www.PeteLeeForSenate.com. I ask for your vote for the Colorado Senate.

-

Lee is running for Colorado Senate in District 12.

My parents always said if you want to complain about something, you should try to be part of the solution. I am running for Congress because I want to be part of the solution to the failed policies of the past eight years.

During my time in uniform, I served three separate tours of duty at the Air Force Academy, teaching American government and the Constitution. All too often in recent years, the new radical Republican dogma has shifted the focus of government away from regular Americans to concentrate on benefiting the elites and special interests. When called on this unfair belief system, these "leaders" respond by distorting the facts, and questioning the patriotism of those who dare to criticize.

Having taken a sacred oath to the Constitution at the beginning of my military career, I am disinclined to sit on the sidelines while radicals subvert our government's core principles. Let me assure the reader: questioning and criticizing our elected leaders is the most patriotic thing one can do.

My opponent, Doug Lamborn, is proud of being, quite simply, the most partisan member of Congress, voting the way his party bosses told him more than 99 percent of the time.

That makes him number one in the House and Senate combined! This is most assuredly not representation. One cannot represent an entire district while taking orders only from one's political party.

I will vote to help my district, my state, and my country, reaching across the aisle constantly to build coalitions that work for the middle class, not for the special interests.

In a time of economic crises, bipartisanship is critically important regardless of what party bosses on either side squawk about. After 25 years as an officer in the United States Air Force, I always put country first. The next Congress faces significant challenges, and we need leaders who understand they must be compasses, not weathervanes.

We must work together to return fiscal discipline to Washington. Every American family knows it is unwise to spend more than you bring in.

It is high time Washington remembered that common sense. Lamborn's recent late-term votes against the Wall Street bailouts come too late to inoculate him against the charge of voting for special interests.

We must begin honoring the sacred promise made to our veterans, and end the months-long wait for Veterans Affairs services. The representative of the 5th District should be the leader in Congress on veteran affairs - he or she should be fighting to end delays in vets getting services, not in taking credit for work largely done by others in getting a cemetery to southern Colorado. A true patriot cares about vets when they are alive, too.

We must work toward real energy independence, an area in which Colorado will lead.

Our dependence on foreign oil is now a national security problem. Lamborn has repeatedly voted against funding alternative energy programs. I will lead in this area, and champion a Manhattan Project on energy independence. We must work ceaselessly to wean our nation from oil imports that sap our finances and weaken our position internationally.

We must restore the Constitution, to which I took a profound and meaningful oath, to a place of respect and honor in our government. The Bill of Rights is a promise to every American that their government will respect their rights.

I have seen terrorism up close and very personal at the Pentagon on 9/11. I am second to no one in my commitment to fight global terrorism. But I will not stand idly by while our rights are eroded way.

This election is about much more than partisan politics. It is not about left and right - it is about right and wrong. It's wrong to put party ahead of country, and it's wrong not to take care of veterans. It's wrong to ignore the Bill of Rights.

This year we can bring real change to Washington, and we can tell the party bosses and the special interests that their time is up.

I served the American people for 25 years in uniform, and I want to continue that vital work as your congressman. It's time for government to remember that every American matters.

-

Bidlack, of Colorado Springs, retired from the Air Force with the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is the Democratic candidate for the 5th Congressional District of Colorado.