My regular reader (Hi, Jeff!) might’ve noticed I’ve been away for a couple of weeks, visiting family in Arizona. My son-in-law flies fighters for the Marine Corps way down south near the Mexican border, and my daughter and their two boys just returned from a three-year deployment in Japan, so a visit was long overdue. And though I’m one of those rare folks who really likes hot weather (and hates the cold), I admit daily highs of near 115 degrees were a tad high, even for me.

Of course, now that I’m back, I’d love to write about the stunning turnaround in our nation’s politics that happened while I was slow roasting in Arizona. President Joe Biden showed a remarkable strength of character and self-sacrifice by stepping aside, and now a President Kamala Harris seems not only possible, but well within reach. The specter of a second Donald Trump term, with the Project 2025 agenda as a guide, is frightening indeed, so good job, Joe, and I’m sure my editors would like a couple thousand words on our shifting national political situation for my column here on Colorado Politics? (Ed: not so much).

Fine… I’ll write about taxes.

Anyway, while my daughter and son in law were still in Japan, they started house hunting in Yuma — the hot one in Arizona, not the lovely farming community here in Colorado. They were looking at, and ultimately purchased, a home whose price was a bit north of half-a-million dollars. Happily, my son-in-law is a lieutenant colonel on flight pay, and they saved very well during the time my daughter was an elementary school teacher, so they can afford the mortgage — but wow.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

When I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s in Ann Arbor, Michigan, I remember thinking one definition of being “rich” was living in a house that cost more than $100,000. Those were very different times, of course, in that a new car might run you $2,500, and houses were well under six figures. Salaries were commensurate, with $30,000 per annum being considered as well off. And a house that cost more than half-a-million dollars? Well, that was a mansion to be sure.

Times change, of course. I learned, when minoring in economics at the University of Michigan, that a little bit of inflation is actually a good thing. Back at our nation’s founding, an annual salary of $2,500 marked you as wealthy indeed but today, not so much. Some rise in prices is not only normal, but is actually desirable. But what rate of increase is, of course, the big question.

I was reminded of all this by a recent Colorado Politics story that noted soaring property taxes in my county of El Paso, especially here in Colorado Springs. Lots and lots of folks got their annual estimated tax letters and were stunned by the increases they saw in what they would owe for 2025. Like most folks, I’m not excited about increasing taxes, but there is certainly more to the story than some tax assessor going nuts.

And indeed, there is.

Back in 1998, my late first wife and I bought our home while I was still on active duty. We paid what to us seemed like a staggering amount, $225,000, but as I was also a lieutenant colonel and we had saved well, it was affordable. In the decades since, I’ve watched my home’s value increase, often by reviewing realtor emails that estimate what we could sell for. Currently, I could sell it for more than $740,00, which is amazing.

But here’s the problem: as my home has risen in value, along with most other homes in a highly desirable area, so too do our property taxes rise. You pay more for a $750,000 house than you do for a $224,000 house. And that’s fair.

I’d love to pay taxes on what I paid for the house back in 1998, but that isn’t how it works nor is it, as I said above, fair. The spectacular rise in home values here in lots of places in Colorado, as much as 40% over the last two years, means your tax bill will go up as well.

But help is on the way — kind of. The last legislative session saw several efforts to reduce tax burdens, especially for seniors, which, at age 66, I find myself suddenly quite interested in. And currently there are two measures headed for the ballot that would further restrict future tax increases.

There is also some talk about a special legislative session to preempt the ballot measures by new laws, but it is currently unclear as to whether that session will take place or not. Personally, I rather hope there is a special session, in that decisions on tax rates and other taxing and spending decisions should be made by our elected officials, and not decided by voters who likely would be casting ballots after being deluged with deceitful advertisements urging everyone to reject every tax. I’m rather fond of having schools, police departments, fire fighters (especially wild firefighters these days), road repairs and, well, you get the point. TABOR shows what can happen when appeals are dishonestly made to voters.

I’m not going to celebrate a higher property tax bill, but if I want to be able to sell my house for a nice profit someday, I also need to accept as my home increases in value, so too will my taxes rise. We can certainly quibble about the rate and amount of such tax increases, but if we want to be honest with ourselves, we need to accept if we want our homes to appreciate, we will need to pay higher taxes. That’s not the message any politician wants to trumpet as a key campaign plank, but as I’m not running for anything these days, I’ll go ahead and say it: higher taxes are not always a bad thing, and are often indicators of good things going on in the economy.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.