As you weigh Proposition 123 on November’s ballot, it’s important to recognize this is yet one more “end around” TABOR restrictions – almost as inventive as the Colorado Opportunity Fund Stipends which retain their Rube Goldberg standing for whitewashing state funds free of TABOR stains.

The fiction that in-state Colorado students receive opportunity grants which are then transferred to their college or university of choice to pay a portion of their tuition – thereby allowing state schools to evade reporting these revenues against their TABOR caps – is creative even if a tad preposterous. Stipend dollars are transmitted directly from the Colorado treasurer to state colleges and universities in a lump sum. This subterfuge serves a worthy goal, however.

Likewise, Proposition 123 is designed to foster, fund and assure access to affordable housing. A recent poll of Denver voters identified housing costs as the number one concern facing the city. Affordability challenges the entire state, perhaps most acutely for mountain resort communities. The complexity of this ballot proposal indicates its authors were far more conversant with the subtleties of affordable housing financing than the general public, who certainly “get” the unaffordability question even if the preferred policy priorities are fuzzy. Prop 123 was a bit of a sleeper, placed on the ballot with financial support for a petition campaign by the Sam Gary Foundation and its executive director, former state Sen. Mike Johnston.

At the campaign’s kick-off press event two weeks ago, sponsors could brag of a comprehensive roster of organizations endorsing the proposition – encompassing perspectives from the far right to the far left. Whatever your personal inclinations, there is probably a group of like-minded voters who want to see you vote “yes.” This may be more a measure of the pervasiveness of the affordability crisis than anything else. The specifics of the ballot proposal have already drawn some editorial criticism and growing objections from Colorado’s mountain counties that the details may make it difficult, if not impossible, for their jurisdictions to participate. Their objections take you deep into the weeds where details regarding the required thresholds for housing growth and expeditious zoning are spelled out.

Lurking along the back wall at the announcement was Craig Hughes, Democratic campaign maven and manager of Michael Bennet’s previous Colorado Senate campaigns as well as steering the senator’s 2022 re-election. I approached Hughes and joked that I had been wondering whether an affordable housing initiative could raise enough money to win public support but was reassured to discover they could afford his help. He grinned and responded with the quip, “just barely.”  Translating this means Hughes will have the dollars to run ads, send mail and phone-bank targeted voters. A full-throated opposition appears unlikely. Spending zealots may grumble, but taxpayers are getting the opportunity to vote up or down just as TABOR demands.

Fortunately, question 123 has been submitted to voters as an initiated statute rather than a constitutional amendment, which allows the Legislature to make tweaks to its internal mechanisms if and when they prove problematic. For this reason, mountain county concerns may be premature. No one intends to penalize these resort communities that have, in most cases, made a more concerted effort to expand affordable housing than the fast-growing “burbs” along the Front Range. The 123 funding gimmick is to annually skim from the top of the general fund an amount equivalent to 1% of statewide personal income, dedicating that to the purposes outlined in the proposition and then, in turn, permanently exempting these revenues under TABOR limits.

Despite optimistic projections of endless TABOR surpluses in the years ahead, you don’t have to be a CPA to conjure up fiscal circumstances that might jeopardize these rosy forecasts. The first to come to mind would be the simultaneous voter approval of Proposition 121 in November, which would permanently reduce Colorado’s flat income tax rate by several hundred million dollars each year. There’s a provision included that authorizes the legislature to dip dollars out of 123 revenues in the event of a future fiscal crisis. If all goes well and the initiative performs as projected, we can expect similar proposals soon from those waiting in line for an opportunity to evade TABOR – think higher education, K-12 schools, mental health services and others.

In 49 American states, voters can reject a proposition like 123 and still expect their legislatures to polish up a refined alternative, but this is virtually impossible in Colorado. Asking our state government to institute a new program or assume a new responsibility has to be approved by voters. If the initiative fails, chances for legislative reconsideration are vanishingly small. Though the proposal could benefit from amendment, that work should be left to the incoming legislature. Colorado’s affordability crisis is so serious I plan to hold my nose and vote yes. Again!

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.