Amendment 33 opponents are the subject of this article from the Denver Post [October 22, 2003, "Casinos opposing Amend. 33 profit]. From the article, "Colorado's mountain casino owners are vehemently opposed to a ballot measure that would legalize slot-style gambling at five Front Range racetracks, but a handful of them are either benefiting from or pushing for similar 'racino' gaming in other states. The casinos say they are not opposed to VLTs but are against Amendment 33 because it would give Wembley, the British company that owns four of the state's five racetracks, a near monopoly on gaming along the Front Range."

Govenor Owens speaks out in favor of Referendum A in this opinion piece from Sunday's Denver Post [October 19, 2003, "YES: Drought was a warning"]. From the essay, "In order to ensure our economic and environmental prosperity, present and future generations must recapture that vision for the future. Referendum A, with its purpose clearly directed at saving Colorado's water, does just that. For decades, the status quo for meeting Colorado's water needs has been the buy-up and dry-up of irrigated agricultural lands. But this unsustainable practice leaves local communities and wildlife habitat suffering. Add to this the threat of continued drought and increased demands on Colorado's unused water from burgeoning downstream states like Nevada and California, and our environment is clearly at risk. Meeting the state's water needs for future generations requires planning, initiative and new partnerships. Water storage must benefit not one but multiple uses, including drinking water, irrigation, hydropower, recreation and the environment."

Attorney General, Ken Salazar, counters the govenor in this opinion piece about Referendum A also from Sunday's Denver Post [October 19, 2003, "NO: Measure an illusionary response"]. From the article, "As written, two major unknown water projects must be proposed in two years. One of those projects must then immediately be started. The water for those projects must unavoidably come from the Colorado River and its tributaries: the Rio Grande, the Arkansas River or the Gunnison River. Because agriculture cannot afford to pay for the revenue bonds contemplated by Referendum A, projects will be built to provide water only to fuel the growth of a few cities along the Front Range."

Denver Auditor, Dennis Gallagher, posted the following comment about Amendment 32 on Coyote Gulch the other day:

"I hope people will study Amendment 32 carefully before they vote. It is a honey covered lemon. It is a smoke screen. Amendment 32 is a tax increase on homes and apartments. Homeowners and renters will pay more taxes and higher rents when landlords pass those higher taxes on to tenants.

Those in favor of Amendment 32 use very misleading language in talking about what it will do. The propaganda implies 32 freezes your homeowner taxes. It does nothing of the sort. Instead, it freezes the possibility of future rate reductions that cushion residential taxes from big business. That's why big corporations are donating to the bulging coffers in support of this shell game. Phillip Morris coughed up $25,000 to try to pass Amendment 32. Don't let the smoke get in your eyes as you read the fine print on 32.

The proponents of this measure say I am only against changing the amendment because I am the Gallagher for which this section of the constitution is named. Let me assure you, if the amendment protecting homes from exorbitant tax increases had been christened 'the Schlimazel Amendment,' I would be against changing it by itself at this time.

So, don't be tempted by the sugar-coated talk and foggy rhetoric, and don't vote to raise your home property taxes so corporate Colorado can pay less. The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News editorial boards have said vote 'No' on Amendment 32. Even Governor Owens has announced he is voting 'No' too. Dennis Gallagher, Denver."
4:22:14 AM