Prop 117 means we get a vote on new gov't enterprises, how does the Assembly staff do fiscal estimates that comply and protect our wishes? Fix the damn Construction Defects Law. And a bad idea.
How does the non partisan Assembly staff ensure compliance with Prop 117 when a bill creates a new enterprise (gov't business that collects fees and does some specific job)?
In 2020, voters approved Prop 117 which said that voters had to approve any enterprise which would collect more than $100 million in fees in its first 5 years. This measure was a way for voters to stem the abuse of enterprises and fees that our Assembly has committed ad nauseum since our "nonpartisan" state supreme court said that fees were different from taxes for TABOR purposes.
I was researching some of the bills I posted about yesterday and I wondered while reading the bill that would put fees on car/truck registrations that depend on the vehicle's weight (see the first link below) how it is that the nonpartisan (no quotes on this one because they, in general, are actually nonpartisan) Assembly staff that writes fiscal notes assesses whether or not a bill creating a new enterprise hits the Prop 117 limit.
After all, the staff never forecasts past one year into the future (again, see the fiscal note and look at the revenue estimate dates). So how would anyone ever know whether or not a newly-minted enterprise would hit the limit? How are voters' wishes to be asked respected?
I wrote the staff at the Assembly and essentially asked that question. I eventually ended up in the inbox of the state's chief economist Mr. Sobetski and I got an answer.
In response to the passage of Prop 117 Assembly Democrats (the bill was, as near as I can tell, passed along party lines) quietly drafted and passed HB 22-1400 which then was signed by Polis. I say quietly because I didn't remember any articles about it and I also found no articles on it when I searched "Colorado HB 22 1400" on Google.*
I put a link to this bill below.
The bill does a lot**, but for our purposes the answer is in the attached screenshot. It both frees up the creation of an enterprise and it removes the high stakes estimating from the Assembly staff.
That's because it basically says that if an enterprise is created and it hits $100 million in revenue within 5 years, the enterprise is to stop collecting money (unless the state receives voter approval).
No wording on what happens in year 6 or beyond. My guess is that this then becomes a court case because the language of 117 is such that it's in the first 5 years. My guess is further that our state supreme court would rubberstamp anything that the Democrats do. That's their job.
I am reminded here of something that I read from Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I'll leave out the context, but the essence was this: the role of a judge in interpreting the laws and Constitution is to enter into a conversation with policymakers.
The older I get and the more I watch politics, the more I start to see the initiative process as similar. Voters create and vote in laws which the Assembly then changes. Then voters get another turn; the back and forth of a conversation.
So, now we both know how our Assembly can create enterprises that don't run afoul (at least of the written words) of Prop 117 and how those that write the fiscal notes can sleep soundly.
*In yet another striking example of our media's desire for sensationalism and our support of same by our viewing/reading habits. Disappointing. Things like this are important.
**Among the things it does is make it so that the schools of higher ed which were designed to run as enterprises back in the day, should they lose their enterprise status, can become an enterprise again without having to get voter approval.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/fiscal_note_bill_1_-_vulnerable_road_user_protection_enterprise.pdf
https://leg.colorado.gov/content/hb22-1400vote56acfe
Another driver of housing supply (and perhaps by extension, housing prices): our state's construction defects law.
As the son of a mechanical engineer who's worked dealing with construction for decades, I can remember talking about the construction defects law long ago.
This law has special relevance these days, however, because it is one of the things cited as a driver in high housing prices.
The thinking goes like this: if the ways our laws are written make it costlier and riskier to build one type of housing vs. another, then we'll get less of that kind of housing. If that housing used to be the achievable first run on the ladder to eventual home ownership, and/or if the laws drive up the costs to developers, we have knocked out a path that many have used in the past to get to owner-occupied housing (and the benefits to all that come with it).
This is put more elaborately and in more detail in the attached screenshot from the conservative-leaning Common Sense Institute's report on condominium construction linked first below.
The problem, at least as my dad has told me and as pointed to in the Sun article linked second below, is related to the higher costs developers must pay to ensure any condominium that they build. Costs that are not there when building houses or apartments.
You simply cannot discount the fact that producers, of anything, weigh their risks and benefits when deciding whether to go into a market, and the market for condominiums in this state are risky as hell.
For example, and this tracks with stories my dad has told me from his own personal experience, condominium owners can sue EVERYONE involved in the building of a condo regardless of whether or not they caused the problem.
Faulty cabinets that break apart and fall of the wall when you put your dishes in them? You can sue not just the folks that put in the cabinets, you can sue the guy who designed the air conditioning system for some reason.
The Sun article below also details some of the rumblings coming out of the state capitol that seem to signal a renewed interest in fixing the construction defects law. My guess is that any change would be a hard fight. Lawmakers would have to fight not only the trial lawyers and their money, they'd also have to fight the other lawmakers who want to focus on gov't subsidized housing.
It ought to be an interesting fight. In the meantime, I'll keep my eyes and ears open. A decent fix, regardless of party sponsorship, has my interest and support.
It's time for the pendulum to swing back towards sanity and away from trial lawyers.
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/condominium-construction/
https://coloradosun.com/2023/10/02/condos-colorado-developers-lawsuits-construction-housing-affordabiliy-bird-zenzinger-legislature-defects-capit/
Related:
Something you'd likely find funny (I did) from the Sun article used as a reference above.
Quoting said article:
"Then there’s the governor, who appears open to construction defects reform but can be difficult to pin down on his policy positions."
Difficult to pin down on his policy positions? Uh, yeah.
Nice way to put it, but in the end, it comes out the same. Like any other savvy career politician, Polis plays it close to the vest until he's sussed out public opinion then, faster than a speeding bullet, he's on that bandwagon!
A bad idea with Thanksgiving approaching ...
We have a single-hole bathroom in the building where I teach that got shoehorned in long before I started teaching there. I'm not sure of the details but it was carved out of what used to be a faculty breakroom or something.
This bathroom has no (read NO) ventilation at all and so when it is used the smells linger. And when I say linger, I mean it. They hang around for hours.
At some point, someone had the idea of getting and keeping a can of bathroom spray in there. You know the kind: it's fresh linen or spice or whatever.
I'm not a huge fan because then what you get is a mix of, say, Spring air + human waste. The combo is never better. It's never a complete coverup. The tang is always there, maybe it's in the background but it makes its presence known.
Or perhaps you spray more and eventually get to the "dew point" for the bathroom spray where you don't notice the foul odor because its like you got tear gassed with Vanilla Dream or whatever.
What I saw in there yesterday strikes me as an even worse idea though. I'm not sure if you're aware, but they make a spray now that is pumpkin pie flavored for the bathroom.
Now, maybe it's just me but this seems a bad idea. Do we really want to foster a psychological association of pumpkin pie with poop this close to Thanksgiving?
Just saying.