A notable statistic from the DMV. "For cause" eviction bill is back and adds another layer to the regulatory onion. A new suit about wolves.
A notable statistic. Remarkable not in the sense CPR has it, but remarkable for how tiny it is.
Let's start with a couple of non-contiguous quotes from the story below.
"The number of people identifying their gender as X [i.e. neither male nor female] on their IDs has increased since the Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles began offering the option five years ago."
and
"In 2023, close to 1,500 people changed the gender marker on their driver’s license or state ID, according to figures provided by Derek Kuhn, a spokesperson for the DMV. In 2022, the number was around 1,100, an increase from 2021, when the number was closer to 750,"
Now, whether anyone chooses to mark an F, M, X or some other symbol on their ID's doesn't really overly concern me. If it's legal and doesn't interfere with things like legitimate police business, I do not care.
What I was thinking while reading the almost-laudatory tone of the article (1500! Up from 1100!) wasn't how remarkable the increase was or how remarkable the number was.
It was how remarkably SMALL that number is.
I've written before about how you need to not only understand increases (and by the way it is a 36% increase to go to 1500 from 1100), but you need to go and check where those increases fit in the grander scheme of things.
I tried looking for numbers of ID's in the state of Colorado and about the best I could find was the second and third link below. The first is a junky site (a .com -- not always reliable) that lists the number of licensed drivers in Colorado as 4,411,587 in 2021. The only more reliable data I could find is the third link, a Federal Highway site that lists the total number of licensed drivers in Colorado as 3,107,258 from 2000.
Not perfect, but what I could produce on my own.
Let's compare. 1500 is about 0.03% of the first number. It is about 0.05% of the second. I would say these are likely underestimates since they are for drivers and not the total number of state ID's issued.
So we have now managed to accommodate about 0.04% of Coloradans who wish to choose an X instead of M or F.
Why on earth are we devoting such inordinate resources to things like this?
Why does CPR choose to devote its reporter's time and it's space to this, particularly when you think of the kinds of things that didn't get covered?
Why do things like this occupy so much time in conservative commentary and in conservative news, particularly when you think of the kinds of things that didn't get covered?
Why do the Democrats running our state make things like this such a gigantic priority, particularly when our state is struggling to battle rising prices, rising taxes, loss of economic opportunity, and all the other ills that would end up benefiting so many more of us in the long run (including those wanting to mark an X on their ID)?
It boggles the mind and speaks to misplaced priorities.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/01/30/number-of-people-marking-x-as-a-gender-identifier-on-colorado-ids/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198029/total-number-of-us-licensed-drivers-by-state/
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs00/dl22.htm
"For cause" eviction bill is back and adds another layer to the regulatory onion.
I have posted more than once about the ever-increasing list of regulations this state (and Denver) are putting on landlords.
The bill linked below is another example. It's a reworking of an attempt last year to limit the ways in which a landlord to remove a tenant. The bill itself is linked first below and beneath that is a CPR story which would give more context.
In essence this bill would limit the
This year's attempt is another bite at the apple for the sponsors whose bill failed last year in the Assembly. So they watered it down and are serving it up again.
But, at least to this landlord, the flavor is still there and I don't like it.
As written it doesn't apply to me right now, but it might in the future.
It sure as hell provides yet more burden on me to make sure I'm in compliance, a burden I usually have to pay retail since I have a family and full time job to take care of first.
I intend to send in an open email and will try (though Wednesdays are tough) to get in to testify remotely.
If you are likewise concerned, you'll find my open email below the links and you're welcome to use any or all of it in your own advocacy.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1098
https://www.cpr.org/2024/01/24/colorado-for-cause-eviction-protections-bill/
An open email to the sponsors of HB24-1098, Cause Required for Eviction of Residential Tenant, and the House Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee
Hello to all,
My name is Cory Gaines. I am a lifelong Colorado resident.
My wife and I have rented her condo ever since we married and she moved in with me. I helped allow her to stay home with our baby which followed our marriage.
We've been renting it for about 6 years now. We've kept it in good condition (we hope to re-occupy it, or at least have the option in the future, if our incomes allow).
Small wonder that we have had only two different tenants in this last 6 years: we are decent people and work hard to treat others, our tenant included, as we would like to be treated, and we keep the rents low to hold on to good people.
Every year, this state (on top of Denver) adds or seeks to add yet more to the lengthy and complicated list of laws and regulations that landlords must meet. This is on top of a system that is already tilted in favor of tenants.
The impression I (and I'm guessing many other landlords) have is that somehow we have an unlimited capacity, budget, and tolerance for rules. To add insult to injury, the policies are nearly always written with what I would term a "blunt edge". That is, all landlords, regardless of the size of their operation and behavior, are lumped together into a group.
I assure you all that neither of these things are true. Especially for landlords such as my wife and I. Besides the above, I'd like to remind you that we are not professional landlords.
We rent a single residence and face a daunting choice every time a new regulation comes out: we must either take time from our full time jobs to learn and ensure compliance or we must pay someone retail to do the compliance for us.
Eventually, and we get closer to this with every new regulation, regardless of how well written it is, how beneficent its intention, this will become more cost and hassle than its worth and we will cash out the condo for the (large) value it will have to someone.
That is, it will cease to be a rental that is actually decently affordable for the part of Denver it's in.
In a state where the ruling party has said more than once that they are laser focused on affordability and housing, I ask you whether your actions match your words when you make policy such as this.
Policy that increases burdens and costs on landlords. Policy that makes them rethink whether they want to rent or not.
I also ask you whether or not you think your policy is intended to bring people together or divide them. Does it separate groups into oppressors and oppressed or does it foster working together to fix problems?
A reasonable person would not struggle to answer these questions as that your policies work against affordability by making it harder to supply housing and by making people unwilling to risk a legal hassle. This is on top of the implied insult against their character.
I urge a no vote.
Thank you for your time.
C
A new suit about wolves.
Back in December of last year, a couple of cattlemen's groups had sued the state over reintroducing wolves. Characterized by some in the media as a "hail mary" pass (see the CPR article linked first below for context), it ultimately failed.
The substance of the lawsuit from December was that the state failed to do an adequate environmental review prior to releasing the wolves and the groups sought an injunction to stop CPW.**
Well, another lawsuit is in the offing. See the second link below for a FencePost article on this new effort. By my reading, this new suit seems to be running along the same or similar tracks as the one from December--the alleged inadequacy of Colorado's environmental impact review.
I attempted to get in touch with the folks behind the suit to try and get more information (and to try and get a handle on how this effort is different from the December effort and why they'd expect different results), but I didn't hear back as of this writing. If I do, I will update.
In the meantime, I wish this new lawsuit luck. As I quipped to Mrs. Gabel when I called to speak to her and try to get more information, perhaps because the word "conservation" is in the group's name, they'll actually have a chance in court.
It would only be fair that a standard used multiple times in the past to delay and stall efforts to do other things could be used here to stall/limit wolf reintroduction. A standard is only a standard if it gets applied equally.
I'll update as I hear more.
**I remember reading of this first lawsuit and characterizing it as "turnabout is fair play" both in my mind and on this page: I chuckled at the fact that environmental reviews were being weaponized against environmentalists/wildlife welfare groups.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/12/13/colorado-cattle-industry-lawsuit-wolf-reintroduction-plan/
https://www.thefencepost.com/news/colo-conservation-alliance-wolf-suit-v-cpw/