More One-Size-Fits-All policy from Front Range lawmakers?, and actual policy advanced by Polis et. al. that is raising costs for people.
Will we see more One Size Fits All policy out of the Front Range (only this time with regard to housing)?
Before I get to the new, let's look at the old for a cautionary tale. The first link below is to a news story by 9News that shows the impact of a recent law on rural hospitals. I attached a screenshot of the bill for reference.
The crux of the matter is that the bill creates more administrative work for hospitals (and doesn't help provide funding of course). This increased workload is doable for big hospitals in Metro areas, it's a costly and big burden for smaller, rural hospitals.
I wasn't there for the debate on the bill and so I don't know if it was brought up at the time the bill was debated, but I can't imagine that this is a hard thing to foresee. Still, bill passes and now smaller hospitals have a problem.
And now to the new. There has been a lot of media buzz about what housing policy will look like this Assembly session (and about how many times and in what varied ways Polis mentioned it in his state of the state address).
The speculation is that the state will look to, in some way or another, take away local control of the issue and force their version of good housing policy on local governments.
I mean, seeing how well it's gone for hospitals (among others) when the state dictates a one size fits all policy from the Front Range, how could they not want to repeat that success, right?
The second link below is an article about how the Basalt, CO town manager (after approval from the city council) wrote a letter to Gov Polis to tell him that pre-empting local control with regard to housing was a bad idea.
Yeah. Experience and common sense both tell me that when the state hands down an edict without thinking it through, there are unintended consequences for places in the state that don't look like and don't operate like the Front Range. See the other screenshot attached for a quick look at what Basalt Town Manager Ryan Mahoney was telling the Aspen Daily News.
Before ending this post let me close with one more thing. It's okay to get upset at the tendency of politicians to only craft policy that works along I-25. It's better to say that they need to involve and think about rural Colorado more.
It's best to not sit and wait for that to happen. If you are a rural Coloradan, if you run something in rural Colorado (a business, a hospital), speak up and write letters to the editor. Pay attention to the bills making their way through the Assembly and get involved.
https://www.9news.com/video/news/local/next/next-with-kyle-clark/new-law-to-protect-vulnerable-patients-could-strain-resources-at-rural-hospitals/73-f932452b-4aad-4577-bd65-eabd4353ee71
https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/basalt-wary-of-polis-proposal-for-affordable-housing/article_f623d2f0-ada8-11ed-8d25-efe9626ae17c.html
Now a double header: first an op ed by the Gazette giving their take on why Polis bears some responsibility for high energy prices then followed up by an actual example of environmental policy that makes things more expensive.
Counterpoint to the idea that our governor doesn't have any part in the current state of energy or prices in Colorado.
An Op Ed that adds to the push back against Gov Polis for the current state of energy (and prices in particular) in this state.
Not much to say here. They put it as well as I could. Worth a read.
https://denvergazette.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-blame-gov-polis-for-energy-poverty/article_2ef35100-4eb6-59bb-850b-ebc1c79560dc.html
Now a specific, concrete example of how the energy policy passed and supported by Polis and his merry band of progressives is costing more money now:
Op Ed's like the one in the previous post are good, but I think they're sometimes a little easy to shrug off. Due to space constraints it's often the case that you have to generalize when you write one.
That's why I wanted to back up that previous post with the following article. This is not opinion. This is not generalities. This is actual policy advanced by Polis et. al and it will cost people more.
Let me quote from the beginning of the article:
"About 8,000 large building owners statewide face spending more than $3.1 billion by 2050 to comply with a proposed rule that seeks to reduce energy consumption now under consideration by state air pollution authorities. That estimate is based on a state economic impact analysis of the proposed rule that is part of Gov. Jared Polis’ Greenhouse Gas Reduction Roadmap, an ambitious plan that seeks to transition the state away from fossil fuels. The plan is mandated by the General Assembly via House Bill 21-1286, which imposes reductions in energy use of 7% by 2026 and 20% by 2030 below 2021 levels."
There is a whole lot more in the article to read. Details about the legality of the process being used. Details about the costs related to electrifying buildings. Pushback by Gov Polis' spokesman (a rather lengthy bit I wanted to include out of fairness so I attached it as a screenshot).
The upshot for me is entirely in the quote above.
The Colorado Assembly has not been hiding the ball here. The members that have pushed policy like this have made it clear that their greenhouse goals and mandates trump nearly all other concerns.
Gov Polis has been duplicitous in his stance on this; like any practiced career politician the answer you get from him needs more asterisks than one could reasonably stuff into a sentence, and the wording changes based on his current poll numbers and who it is that's asking.
The outcome for you and I living in this state has been the same regardless: increased cost of living to reduce greenhouse gas output that will have a negligible effect on the world's climate.
https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/colorados-new-environmental-rule-could-cost-building-owners-tenants-more-than-3-billion/article_0fa56f7a-ab58-11ed-bb40-4bbd2c17b681.html