Yes, I'll admit it. I'm one of those road-ragers. Every day, I-25 turns tens of thousands of ordinarily calm, courteous Coloradans into snarling, fuming, overaged adolescents. So, I'm all for building light rail and widening I-25 on the southeast corridor. Last fall, I supported the referendum that would have used $1 billion of the state's surplus to improve roads and schools. That made sense to me because it was money we already had in hand. I thought that was a fiscally conservative approach to solving our problems. Let me say right up front that I will also support the current proposal to borrow money to improve roads. I'm that desperate.

Now, here's what mystifies me. One of the biggest opponents of that referendum-to use money we already had--was none other than Bill Owens. Yet, he's also the biggest supporter of the referendum to borrow $2.3 billion-money we don't have--for road improvements. Of that amount, we'll spend $1.7 billion on roads and $600 million on interest payments. That is not fiscally conservative. What I don't understand is why you'd oppose spending money you already have, but instead be happy to borrow money to do the same thing--and stick it to our kids to repay the debt.

State officials are saying that construction costs are increasing so fast that borrowing all this money is a good deal for taxpayers. My friends in the construction business tell me that these costs are increasing at about 2-3% a year, way below the interest cost of the proposed bonds. I suspect that voters will see right through that argument.

That means that supporters of the borrowing will need to come up with better reasons for Coloradans to vote for this measure. Here are some suggestions.

Be very specific about what projects will be part of this package. Tell voters before the election how their money will be spent. Accountability is a key to persuading taxpayers to let government borrow or spend on their behalf.

Over the past decade or so, voters have been asked a number of times to spend money on schools and highways. Most of the state's business and political leaders have been strongly behind these proposals. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent to encourage voters to vote for them. But, voters have routinely turned them down.

I suspect one reason for this is that people don't fully trust "those leaders up there in Denver". Coloradans rightly want to be involved in deciding what is going to happen with their money. It would be a smart move for the leaders of the current effort to go first to citizens across Colorado to find out what they really want, what investments are important to them, what dangerous roads really worry them when their kids are out at night. These projects, developed from the community level, should be included whenever possible in the list of work to be done.

As part of this process, including local citizens from all over the state-businesspeople, city council members, county commissioners-in the planning and oversight of this highway spending would be refreshing. It would help win local support for this referendum. I don't mean just token representation, either, but real representation, where local citizens feel their views are indeed incorporated into planning and where they feel those who spend their money are answerable to them.

Finally, if rural Coloradans believe that all the money will go to Denver projects, they'll just vote no. In my many years of travel throughout this state, I've heard over and over that all the money and all the goodies go to Denver. While this may not be accurate, it is reality to many thousands of voters. That's why it's so important to be inclusive in this process and to spread the money fairly.

We need to improve our highways. There will be a measure to do that on the November ballot. If Coloradans believe state officials have really listened and are really accountable, they just might vote for it. Let's do it right this time.