Government funding media? What could go wrong? If Speer Blvd doesn't equal arterial, then what? Prop 129 and veterinary medicine.

Government funding for media?  What could possibly go wrong?

I'm a little time in getting around to putting it up here, but I wanted to share a recent op ed I did on government funding for media.

Is, was, and always will be a (mostly) bad idea.  We already have enough trouble without inviting the government into the mix and any thinking person already knows that money ALWAYS comes with strings attached.

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/09/05/gaines-progressives-push-more-government-funded-news-media/

Related:

Per Hutchins' media newsletter, Boulder is giving taxpayer money to a local radio station to aid in their effort to renovate some office space.

The relevant bit in the screenshot, the link to the full newsletter at bottom.

Local man saves a Colorado newspaper on the Eastern Plains. What about the rest?

---

If Speer Blvd doesn't equal arterial, then what?

The Denverite story below details a "new vision" for Speer Blvd drawn up by a group of architects at the behest of the city.  As you can see in the link below and picture at the top, this plan would entail a huge loss of road surface.  

Fair enough, their road.  If the people of Denver are wanting to fund this, it's their prerogative.

A question is suggested by the following quote from the report (and relayed in the article), however:

“'Historically, Speer has been used by drivers and vehicles moving in and out of the city, often bypassing downtown,' the study’s authors wrote, adding that planned redevelopments would 'reposition Speer from an arterial at the city’s edge to a street within the city’s center.'” 

What would happen to the traffic that formerly used Speer to skirt going through the city at a (relatively -- I've driven it myself and for a city street it flows decently well) good clip?

Do they slow down and clog the smaller road?

Do they end up on some other road?

Do the authors and city envision that there will be less traffic because of fewer cars?

Something tells me the latter will not be what happens.  

https://denverite.com/2024/09/06/speer-boulevard-pedestrian-redesign/

Related:

Caldara's apt thinking on the cause of traffic and where we ought to put our money. I'll give you a hint. It's not into redesigns that lead to more traffic and not to transit.

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/09/26/caldara-central-planners-disregard-transportation-needs/

---

Opinion on Prop 129

What I don’t know could fill a warehouse. In fact, the older I get it seems the less I do know.

Prop 129 (see either your blue book, or the link to the electronic one first below) presents just such a case for me. I have no recent experience with vets; I don’t have need of one, nor do I make my living working with animals. The closest thing to pets are the birds I like to feed so they’ll hang around.

I have no earthly idea whether this is helpful or not and have no strong emotions about it. Given that, my inclination is to vote no (that’s the safe course), but it never hurts to seek out other opinions on the matter.

Rachel Gabel was kind enough to share her thoughts. That’s the second op ed below and she is a DEFINITE (not ambivalent) no. Wherever you are on the issue, take a minute and give it a look. This is the perspective of someone who does make their living working with animals and would thus stand a better chance of being affected by your vote.

I also want to open up the comments to you. Do you have thoughts on Prop 129? Please share if you’ve a mind to.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024-blue-book-english-accessible.pdfv

https://gazette.com/opinion/column-voters-shouldnt-decide-future-of-veterinary-medicine/article_19e72358-7775-11ef-9aa7-67c4a292b863.html