Attend government meetings, even if you can't speak up. HB24-1107 is about putting you, as an ordinary citizen, into a different, lower class than high-density developers.
Attend government meetings, even if you can't speak up.
I wrote a bit back giving the time and date for a Department of Local Affairs meeting up here in Logan County (see the link below).
I wanted to follow up on that. Specifically, I wanted to encourage you to attend government meetings whether or not you speak, and whether or not there is even an opportunity to speak.
Let me take you on a quick diversion. Back when I was learning how to be a teacher, I read a tip on classroom management I have made great use of ever since. If you have a student who is acting up, or you think will act up, or if you think he or she is cheating, etc., walk back to where they are and park yourself just behind and to the side of their chair. You don't need to say anything or do anything. Just sit there.
Why? I liken it to carrier diplomacy (sometimes also referred to as gunboat diplomacy). Carrier diplomacy refers to the situation where our navy parks a ship off a recalcitrant country's coast as a reminder of the power that we have. The ship isn't there to actually fight per se, and there's no outward display of aggression. It's just there. A reminder.
With both students and countries this presence has real impact. My own personal experience has been that, without any real movement, talking, or effort, the (potential or real) problem goes away. The student abandons their mischief (or the temptation thereto), and settles into work.
Back to attending government meetings. The reasoning behind attending government meetings is exactly the same. Government officials need to know someone is watching. They need to see the faces of the people that their policy will be affecting.
Think about how powerful it would be for you to attend more than one meeting, to attend enough that your face would be recognizable. Not behaving poorly, not with a mean expression, just there. Just watching. The best part is, you needn't have any nerves about what to say or looking a fool by speaking in public.
I will wrap up by giving you an update on the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) meeting that came up to my neck of the woods. I did indeed manage to find the time to go.
And I sat in the empty meeting room for about 20 minutes before I saw the people getting into a van out in the parking lot. I was tempted to be a bit upset, but upon leaving I ran into the head of the DOLA board, and, after confirming there was no meeting, got a chance to discuss some land use things in person with him. This was something I'm not sure I could have done had the meeting proceeded as planned and certainly not something I would have been able to do if I didn't try to go.
Show up. Park your butt in the room. Let the government know you're paying attention. You cannot know ahead of time what it will lead to or what effect it may have.
HB24-1107 is about putting you, as an ordinary citizen, into a different, lower class than high-density developers.
I have to be honest that HB24-1107 linked first below) flew right past me without me so much as blinking. That is until I read the article linked second.
The article details a lawsuit over the bill. The lawsuit alleges that "chills" our rights to petition our government.
Let's go back a step. If you didn't like a decision your government made, you can seek judicial review of the decision. You go to court, a judge rules, and both parties go from there (either appealing or accepting the verdict). There's no guarantee of success,** but it is a check on the government and its decisions.
Up until now, someone seeking judicial review of land use decisions could do so without fear of having to pay for the government's attorney fees and/or could figure that a review would stop the decision moving forward into action.
Not anymore. As you can see in the screenshot, HB24-1107, if you lose judicial review on your land use decision, you get to pay the government for their lawyers fees. Oh, and while the judicial review is percolating through the system, the decision gets to stand and proceed.
Wait, sorry. Missed something there. I highlighted it in the screenshot. This is only for SOME land use decisions. The kind that our governor and his merry band of progressives favor. The attorneys fees are only due if the housing density is high enough.
Didn't want to live next to the projects and figure that the process wasn't followed correctly when the hearings happened? Better hope you stand a real good chance of winning because if you lose, you pay.
Hence the "chilling" above.
I'll leave it to you to read the article for more detail on this particular lawsuit, but I do want to point out some things.
Yes, frivolous lawsuits happen. Yes, lawsuits are used by groups to prevent something from happening when the same result cannot be achieved by the usual, democratic means.
But we're not all equal in front of the Democrats' law here.
The Democrats here fall in line with the governor and his push for increased density and are raising the price of poker on those who disagree with such things by SPECIFICALLY tilting the balance for high density disputes. The "loser pays" aspect ofdoesn't apply to all land use decisions, just the ones involving high housing density.
It goes further. If you're a developer and you ask for judicial review of a land use decision (and you lose), you (unlike us regular citizens) don't have to pay.
Despite more than one attempt and/or a call for it, the Democrats have not supported putting in any sort of "loser pays" provisions into other lawsuits and etc. Gotta keep their trial lawyer friends happy.
It is routine that environmentalists delay and delay and delay projects by resorting to the courts. Nope, no such provisions on having the losing party pay there either.
I put all these things together and weigh them against the following quote from the article:
"The lawsuit alleges that the law's supporters say it will help prevent "frivolous" land use appeals statewide."
and I think that, if supporters do say such a thing (no one specific is quoted), they're shoveling BS.
This ain't about preventing frivolous lawsuits, land use or no. It's about separating us into classes according to whether or not we agree with Polis et. al. on land use.
**I'm thinking here of eminent domain questions where someone really, really doesn't like the taking. In cases like these the judge really cannot rule on much more than whether the authority to do eminent domain was properly given/used and whether the payment is fair.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1107
https://krdo.com/news/2024/07/07/lawsuit-against-colorado-springs-and-the-state-alleges-new-house-bill-favors-property-developers/#content