‘Facts’ still short in debate about measures
October 15, 2010
In my letter about amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101, I called on the proponents to give us some facts. Since Mr. White of Grand Lake chose to direct his letter to me, I feel obligated to educate him on what a “fact” is. He purports to present all of two facts.
First that “the reduction in vehicle taxes will greatly impact agencies.” Looks like an “assertion” to me – not a fact. Based upon what study or analysis? I would assert that the liberals in Denver just increased the vehicle fees (read taxes) and the proposed amendment would merely put them back where they were. It is hard to figure how that would be a “great impact.”
Second that “local fire districts could lose as much as $100,000 annually . . .” Well, “could” is hardly an indication of fact. I could grow a beautiful head of hair too. As I recall, several years ago, we voters de-Bruced the fire district allowing them to increase taxes faster than the rate of inflation. What we got was a fire station at the Y entrance which sat essentially unused (except to hold a couple of trucks that were also essentially unused) for a few years.
Meanwhile Ms. Muftic digs up the dead mackerel again that: “East Grand schools may be forced to close its doors for three months if those amendments are passed” . . . which Mr. White will probably accept as fact. Most voters are more discerning about what facts are … oops, I think my hair could be coming back.
Winter park Highlands