We should all be skeptical of metro districts’ taxes, debt

Re: “Metro districts are vital to Colorado’s economy, growth,” Feb. 1 commentary

In reading Tom Clark’s opinion on metro districts, I find it interesting that he leaves out vital facts that conflict with his assertion that metro districts are vital to Colorado.

He stated that “Metro district boards are often controlled by homeowners.” That is only true three to five years after the homes are occupied. At that point, 100% of the debt has already been issued as voted on by the developer prior to house one being sold and occupied.

Metro districts give developers a risk-free opportunity by allowing them to not have to pay for infrastructure themselves and to develop with other people’s money. They have very little “skin in the game.”

The developers often vote on the future homeowners’ behalf to issue bonds that they themselves invest in, thereby earning interest on the bonds they voted to issue. I find it funny that the only people who are well served by metro districts are the developers themselves and not the future homeowners.

Keith Oliver, Morrison

I suppose metro tax districts were a necessary evil for cities and counties caught in the grip of TABOR for the past three decades as our population and the need for housing boomed.

However, since about 230 local governments across Colorado have “deBruced” (exempted themselves from TABOR’s refund requirements), I fail to see why we need to continue allowing developers to act as crypto-governmental entities. Metro districts work mostly in the dark, and are able to set arbitrary debt levels to pay for infrastructure costs that historically have been included in the cost of housing or were funded by the local government.

If local governments are unwilling or unable to resume their role in infrastructure investments that benefit the entire community, I have an alternative suggestion.

Colorado House District 7 candidate Bernard Douthit has proposed the idea of a Colorado Public Bank that would go a long way toward eliminating the need for developer-created metro tax districts.

By backing low-interest infrastructure loans, a public bank accountable to taxpayers would remove any hint of self-dealing, lower costs for homeowners, and ensure that as with any loan, the costs are fully documented and justified as fair and necessary.

It would eliminate the need to issue bonds that represent taxation without representation in the current development model, which has resulted in property tax surcharges that can double a homeowner’s taxes.

Harry Doby, Denver