Denver adds a burden of extra time to that of their regulations. Who's ready for another enterprise (and fees)? Oh, and the Sun's "coincidental" article cheerleading it.
Yet another regulatory burden, this one being time.
I have written multiple times about the burdens that government places on business (the most recent being about the creation of new and exciting ways for trial lawyers to bring lawsuits).
I wanted to continue that theme today, but approach from another angle. It ends up amounting to the same thing in the end (since Time = Money), but the burden I want to highlight now is that of the government taking time. And this time it isn't just businesses that are (directly) affected.
The CBS article linked below details a recent finding by Denver's City Auditor that says that (quoting the article):
" ... construction plan review errors, unclear instructions, and a lack of manager oversight are increasing costs and slowing down the process for homeowners to get permits for renovation and building projects in Denver."
Reading the article will get you all the details you'd like as to they why's and wherefore's, but the bottom line comes down to the following:
--The people working for the city are making mistakes and going slower than they ought to.
--These slowdowns add time and cost to any sort of renovations or construction (and that ignores the number of screwups the reviewers make in looking at plans).
Small wonder that many are skipping the permit process and doing the work on their own, without a permit.
Every. Single. Time. the government insists on intruding into the market or the lives of its citizens we are apt to have problems like these.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have plan reviews or building inspections (there are plenty of folks who could fall victim to unscrupulous contractors or who would do something to a house to render it unsafe and sell to an unwitting party), but I do want to call your attention to the above.
Remember it for every new proposal to add another layer to the ever-growing onion of government. Regardless of the proposal, ask yourself whether or not this new body, department, or whatever will end up like Denver's Building Dept.
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/denvers-city-auditor-slow-permitting-process-costs-homeowners/
Yet another enterprise, this time to take money from you and build things like barriers around bike lanes. Oh, and the fee scales with the weight of the vehicle.
The bill linked below is up for a committee hearing on Monday 2/5 and it creates an enterprise** which will assess fees on drivers in the 12 most populous counties in Colorado to then fund things like barriers at bike lanes and increased visibility devices at crosswalks.
As a fan of my TABOR rights and keeping my own money, I object to fees/enterprises on principle, and I object to the manner in which this policy is done.
I sent the open email at the bottom of this post and have signed up to deliver testimony. If you are passionate about this subject and/or if you want to defend TABOR and your wallet, I urge you to join me in speaking up.
You can sign up through the bill link and/or find the committee to send an email. If anything I wrote is of use, please feel free.
**As a refresher if you need it. An enterprise is a government "business" that assesses fees (so politicians don't need to ask us for more taxes or reprioritize their budgets to pay for their ideas. This "business" takes in revenue from your money, grants, etc. and then does a specific thing with it.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-036
Email follows.
An open letter to the sponsors of SB24-036 Vulnerable Road User Protection Enterprise and the Senate Transportation and Energy Committee
Hello to all,
My name is Cory Gaines. I am a lifelong Colorado resident, currently living on the Eastern Plains. I write this email representing only myself but I am sharing it with you and the general public.
I am hoping to testify at the hearing on the 5th, but if my teaching schedule doesn't allow it, and anyone who receives this email would like to read it in whole or in part for the record, please feel free.
This bill has good intent. I'm sure there are few who would argue with the idea of wanting to protect people from harm done by cars and trucks.
Unfortunately, for all its good intent, it is wrongheaded in the way it is set up and in the way it will effect those who live in the districts where it applies.
There are a couple of reasons I say this.
In what has become too much of a habit for the people that write laws in this state, we have yet another policy done via fee specifically to circumvent the expressly stated will of the people to be asked for any tax increases.
Rather than reprioritizing other things in our state's budget, something we working families and taxpayers must do constantly in an ever-costlier Colorado, rather than making a case to those same working famlies to increase the burden the state puts on them, you have chosen to circumvent what we might want by choosing to institute a fee for a "service". A service which ironically will not be used to help those in nearly any of the vehicles which pay the fee!
All this in a state where we continually hear about how those in power are "laser-focused" on affordability.
I think, by way of my second reason, that I would like to put some numbers to your fee schedule because it's easy to get lost in dollar and pound amounts; let's talk over specifics here so that everyone can get a sense of where they'd sit. I think what most people will see is that, while they didn't think themselves heavy, they are by your definitions.
As a light car, my old and tiny little Geo would thankfully not be assessed a fee. It weighs only 2400 pounds.
My wife's car, a KIA hybrid would be assessed a fee of $3. If her car were fully electric, it would be charged $6.40 since the weight would go from 3500 to 5500 pounds.
What about trucks? After much looking, I was able to find a small Mitsubishi truck from 2019 which would pay no fee, weighing in at about 3200 pounds in its lightest configuration.
Stepping up we have a Toyota Tacoma at 4400 pounds paying $4.50. A Yukon SUV weighing in at 5800 pounds would pay $9.60, and a fully electric Ford F150 weighing in at 6500 pounds pays $14.
Ignoring the obvious irony of pushing EV's while at the same time assessing higher fees to them for their heavier weights, it's important to note that what we are NOT talking about here is only the heavies paying. Outside of small cars and the odd compact pickup, everyone will pay.
And they'll pay regardless of their individual safety record.
I urge you to vote no and tell the sponsors that, while their hearts are in the right spot, they need to try again on their written policy.
C
A coincidental article? I doubt it.
In analogy to the quote I attached as a picture, just in time for the committee hearing of the bill I posted about just prior to this, a Sun article talking about how deadly our roads are appears.
Golly a more cynical man might suspect that what happened was an advocacy organization (tied to the sponsors of the bill) contacted the reporter with all kinds of facts and pitched a story. A story which the Progressive Sun couldn't skip.
But that would be what a cynical man would think. I, being not that cynical, will quietly await a follow up article by The Sun where the TABOR foundation talks about the spread of fees and enterprises in Colorado.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/29/colorado-pedestrian-bicyclist-traffic-deaths-2023/