Here's an in-depth look at Referendum A from the Denver Post ["October 26, 2003, "Ref. A pits competing water interests"]. From the article, "Referendum A is hailed by backers as a tonic for struggling farms and country communities, but its strongest support comes from the wealthy, politically connected southern suburbs of Denver that have a water crisis on their horizon. Opponents claim the statewide ballot issue is really about allowing more sprawl south of Denver, pulling water from the Colorado River on the Western Slope instead of the South Platte River in the south metro area's basin. Southern and some western suburbs of Denver are home to the state's biggest concentration of water-poor Coloradans. The region from Centennial to Castle Rock has a population of roughly 140,000 today- people who rely on groundwater supplies that are being depleted faster than they are being replenished. The area's population is expected to grow to 420,000 by 2050, according to a water-depletion study released last December."
Here's another article about Referendum A from the Denver Post [October 26, 2003, "Murky math, risky forecasts cloud state's water future"]. The article concentrates on the difficulty of predicting rainfall and making estimates based on snowpack.
The Post editorial staff is urging voters to approve Referendum A [October 26, 2003, "Vote for win-win water plan"].
The Post recaps their picks for next week's ballots in another editorial [October 26, 2003, "The Post's recommendations"].
Ed Quillen presents his 10 reasons for voting for Referendum A in his column in today's Denver Post [October 26, 2003, "Ten reasons to support Referendum A"]. Keep in mind, however, Quillen is opposed to the referendum. Here's Quillen's #1 reason to vote yes, "Colorado needs more Republicans. Any water developed by Referendum A bonds will go toward the continued growth of the south metro suburbs. That's because they currently get their water from wells whose water table is falling. So they need to import water. That's Republican territory, so the more development there, the greater the GOP's political edge in Colorado. So you have a patriotic duty to support Referendum A. Otherwise, Colorado might suffer the horrors of, among other things, a divisive two-party political system."
Here's a look at the current state of gambling in Colorado and the possible effects of Amendment 33 from the Denver Post [October 26, 2003, "Amendment 33 could turn tables"]. From the article, "Inside, perhaps 100 gamblers, mostly men 50 and older, pore over racing forms and debate whether the favored No. 8 dog will beat the pack to the rail. Grumbling about the track service, from its charge for pencils to its $5 hot dogs, they wander off to place their bets. Nobody is watching this recent day's only live Colorado dog races beside the track. The patrons cluster instead around indoor tables with miniature television sets that, on busier days, draw gamblers betting on televised horse races. Most of the men here expect this sleepy gambling scene to change dramatically if Colorado passes Amendment 33 on Nov. 4. The measure would allow video lottery terminals, similar to slot machines, at the racetracks."
Bob Ewegen attempts to lay out the arguments for and against Amendment 33 in his column today in the Denver Post [October 26, 2003, "A new gamble"]. Robert S. Grant (district attorney for Colorado's 17th Judicial District) urges voters to turn down the amendment in today's Post [October 26, 2003, "NO: Local impact not considered"]. Dave Costlow (owner of Whitewater Adventures) argues in favor of the amendment in today's Post [October 26, 2003, "YES: Colorado tourism needs boost"].
Gail Schoettler, in her column in today's Post [October 26, 2003, "What's the truth behind the ads?"] is hoping that voters will turn down Amendment 33. Says Schoettler, "Isn't it a little odd that in the midst of lauding all the supposedly great advantages of Amendment 33, the supporters have virtually nothing to say about what Amendment 33 really does? If gambling is so good for Colorado, why don't they broadcast the wonders of gambling, too?"
Diane Carman exhorts voters to take interest and make sure they mail in their ballots for the November election. She writes, in her column in today's Denver Post [October 26, 2003, "Frustrate the big shots by voting"] that she is worried that since there are no real sexy issues on the ballot that apathy will prevail. Says Carman, "This is not exactly stuff that inspires a new generation to pay any price and bear any burden. It's easy to see why voters might sit this one out. But every time we do that, we hand over a little more power to the guys with the big scams and the big bank accounts who count on us behaving like ignorant suckers. At the very least, we should take some delight in frustrating them. Don't kid yourself. The greatest threat to freedom is not terrorism. It's indifference. So fill out the ballot and put it in the mail while you still have the chance."