"If you don't buy this magazine, we'll shoot this dog."

The accompanying photo on one of the most famous magazine covers ever published was a picture of a hound dog with a revolver pointed at its head.

We are reminded of this National Lampoon classic by the position Telluride voters find themselves in as they head to the polls.

Vote yes on Ballot Issue 2A to authorize $20 million in debt, debt that will cost upwards of $50 million to pay back with interest, or lose the Valley Floor to probable development that we have minimal influence over and that will forever close public access to the land.

Those who wish to see the bulk of the Valley Floor preserved as publicly accessible open space, but don't like how it's being done, have nowhere left to go. We're down to this option or nothing:

Commit to 20 percent of unencumbered town revenues to go to the open space fund for the next thirty years, at a minimum, or lose the Valley Floor.

Agree that the bulk of the money for the Valley Floor preservation effort won't be coming from private sources after all – as we were so often promised that it would be – or lose the Valley Floor.

Gamble that the private money that may be needed to complete the acquisition (that's money beyond the public funds available, $20 million from debt, $10 million on-hand) will really be there – although none has been secured – or lose the Valley Floor.

Accept debt we didn't need to have, bonding that without a doubt entails tremendous opportunity costs, or … well, you get the idea.

Our children, if they can afford to stay, or those who move into this valley after those who are here now are long gone, will pay for it.

As a community, we have arrived at this unfortunate juncture by a series of deliberate choices. Once, not so long ago, we could have had all 860 acres of the Valley Floor for less than the south 570 acres will cost us now, but we blew that opportunity. And that 860 acres could have served many public purposes, including open space.

More recently, we could have had 530 or so acres of the south side for open space at no public cost at all, and more overall open space than we'll get by succeeding with the condemnation, by allowing housing on only 40 acres of the south side, but we chose another path.

This history is not recited out of sour grapes because, yes, this paper, in its editorials, has often argued for the losing side.

But isn't $60 million or $70 million in public funds – the precise amount can't be known, which is yet another risk we face – an awful lot to pay for something we could have had 90 percent of for no cost at all? Imagine what we could have done with the money! Save the Gunnison Sage Grouse. Put solar panels on every roof in the county. Build community-preserving affordable housing. Instead, we will now protect the view corridor for the few who can afford our ever-rising property values and cost of living.

Through our series of political choices, we have elevated open space preservation well, over every other community purpose. We have chosen to make Telluride a place for the moneyed elite, for the very few who can afford it. And, yes, that elite can afford the $60 million or the $70 million, or whatever it may ultimately cost. Those who can't afford it have already left or will soon be gone anyway. So, why worry?

Only because it says so much about our values.

Telluride voters have shown repeatedly that as a community we value open space first and foremost. It seems unlikely that the voters will change course now. Nor should they, necessarily. The cows are out of the barn and, besides, we have no alternative left.

The Watch won't fly in the face of such clear community sentiment and recommend a no vote on Issue 2A, to authorize debt to acquire the Valley Floor. But we can't endorse it either, feeling backed into this tight and uncomfortable corner. At this point, in all honesty, it's difficult to remember how or why it really matters.

Turn Back Attacks on Representative Government

There are three questions on the Colorado state ballot that fall into the bucket of being populist measures advanced by conservatives. But all three are really radical, not conservative, measures, and should be rejected. Amendment 38 would make it much easier for citizens to petition to place initiatives and referendums on the ballot, not just the state ballot, but on local ballots as well. Amendment 39 would require Colorado school districts to spend at least 65 percent of their budgets on direct classroom expenditures.

Perhaps the most radical of the three is Amendment 40, which would establish term limits of ten years for appellate court judges, including Colorado Supreme Court judges. The measure would dramatically increase turnover among the seven Colorado Supreme Court judges and 19 judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Interestingly, the mischief created by Amendments 39 and 40 provides a strong argument for rejecting Amendment 38. The last thing Colorado voters need is even more of these ill-conceived and misleading ballot questions to consider, which is precisely what Amendment 38 is designed to produce.

All three of these measures are essentially brickbats thrown against representative government. Despite understandable cynicism about how well, or how poorly, our democratic institutions are working, laws drafted for the ballot by special interest groups often create far more problems than they solve. The ability for citizens to petition questions to the ballot is legitimate, but it should not be too easy, as Amendment 38 would make it.

Amendment 39 diminishes the ability of local school boards to prepare their own budgets. While it may seem like common sense to restrict the school district expenditures that go to administration and other costs not directly related to classroom instruction, this proposal is a blunt instrument to achieve what may be a worthy goal. One size does not fit all in operating schools. Telluride's needs differ dramatically from Denver's, or Montrose's, and school districts in each of these communities should have the ability to spend their tax revenues as they see fit. Voters already have a remedy if they don't like how their schools are operating. They can simply elect new members to the school board.

Amendment 40 is an attack on one of the fundamental principles of our system of government: an independent judiciary. The last thing we need is a system that makes judges more political, yet that is precisely what Amendment 40 is designed to do. This amendment was created by conservatives upset by a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to disallow an initiated ballot question to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. Following that decision, the Colorado General Assembly convened in a special session to address an issue that was really too complex to be dealt with in a single ballot question. It all worked out as it should have.

If it passes, five Supreme Court justices and seven Appellate Court judges would all be termed out at the same time in 2008. If Bill Ritter wins the governorship, as polls currently suggest he will, then Amendment 40 will have backfired on the conservatives who petitioned it on the ballot. The Democratic governor would have the ability to stack the court for the following ten years, surely the last thing former State Senator John Andrews contemplated.

While there may be some satisfaction in seeing the proponents of Amendment 40 hoist by their own petard, we still urge a no vote on Amendments 38, 39 and 40.