Amendment 74 is a smart move at the right time

Most people in Colorado don’t know the government can take up to 90 percent of the value of their property without compensating them for their loss.

When confronted with this information most tend to react with skepticism, assuming such an extreme number must not be accurate — but it is. Amendment 74 is a reasonable guardrail to ensure the long arm of government can’t reach in and devalue that for which you’ve worked your entire life without just compensation.

Amendment 74 is about fairness. At eleven words, it’s the most straightforward measure on the ballot this year. Unlike most of the issues we see, it’s an easy read, and we strongly urge every voter to see that for themselves.

Amendment 74 enshrines the protection of the individual in our state constitution — which is precisely where it should have been all along. It allows the “David” of a single person to at least have a shot against the “Goliath” of government. Currently, in too many cases, there is not a method by which an individual property owner can attempt to be made whole when adversely affected by government action.

Opponents of Amendment 74 have resorted to extreme rheto ric in an attempt to scare voters. But, consider the source: opponents of this measure have an entrenched interest in the status quo. Opponent groups are either composed entirely of government members, like the Colorado Municipal League, or have government interests on their boards. They’re desperate to continue escaping accountability for their actions.

Contrast that with the proponents of 74 — groups like the Colorado Farm Bureau and the National Federation of Independent Business. Our members rely on our personal property to provide for our families. We recognize the alarming trend of governments, composed of both elected officials and unelected bureaucrats with increasingly activist leanings, diminishing our property for their pet issue of the day.

Those who are against 74 want you to believe this is solely about oil and gas — but it covers land and water rights as well. The Colorado Farm Bureau has been working on and tracking this issue in Colorado for years because we recognize the inequity of the current standard.

One of the most cited arguments against 74 is that it could cost local governments money. However, it could only do so if a property owner demonstrates in a court of law that their value has been degraded and they meet the various limiting principles the court has already applied. Those who scream it could cost millions must understand the irony of their argument. If it costs the government millions, by extension it means the government is costing individual property owners millions with their adverse action.

The bar to demonstrate harm is high. And it should be. Governments need to be able to shape their communities in a way that works for everyone. But they should not ask individual landowners to bear the cost of those policies. Furthermore, thoughtful zoning laws and other government action can increase property values.

Ultimately, if you, like Colorado farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs, believe it is deeply unfair that property owners must lose more than 90 percent of the value of their property through government action before there is recourse available to them, vote for Amendment 74.

The idea that governments can come in and devalue your property without recourse or compensation to a property owner is anathema to our fiercely held Colorado values.

Don Shawcroft is president of the Colorado Farm Bureau and rancher from Alamosa.