"This project is only possible with [taxpayer money]." Is the mobile harm reduction van in Arapahoe County different than proposed safe use sites? Keeping the (teachers' union) paymasters happy.
The project is only cost effective with this federal grant. The project has a payback period of 16 years. Without federal (and/or state) funding it wouldn't make sense.
This paraphrasing comes from the Sun article linked first below. See the attached screenshot for the full context from that article.
This particular article details a floating solar power array that Fr. Lupton is putting in a reservoir, but it could just as easily cover state or federal grants for a wide array of environmental gadgetry and "solutions" we've been dumping TAXPAYER (not state nor federal) money into lately.
It could apply to building codes that require a whole lot of extras that take longer than most people will own the house to pay off.
It could apply to solar and wind farms.
It could apply to EV's. Where, as the second link below has it this particular EV manufacturer (Rivian), and likely others, are having financial hard times which are "...all part of a larger reckoning for EV companies, which now face falling demand amid a shrinking pool of wealthy buyers who don't already have an EV and lingering questions from the broader consumer market about whether EVs can truly fit into their lives and budgets."
Wouldn't it be wiser to perhaps try and make smaller, achievable steps? Steps that don't require that money gets transferred from families already struggling to make ends meet into the hands of companies and the wealthy?
Wouldn't it be wiser to perhaps have a longer time horizon instead of trying to jump immediately to EV's and an untested renewable grid?
If these things only are feasible with giant subsidies, what are we going to do when that money runs out, which it inevitably will?
Probably be asked to pay yet more to the government.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/01/floating-solar-array-fort-lupton-united-power/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/once-the-darling-of-the-ev-world-the-electric-truck-maker-rivian-is-reeling/ar-BB1iK3tW
Related:
I have written a lot in the past about the Front Range needing to do its part to help conserve water.
The article details the bill on that. Speaking of gobs of tax money spent on the environment, wow!
Worth it? What do you think?
https://coloradosun.com/2024/02/27/cost-replacing-grass-colorado/
Is the "mobile harm reduction" van in Arapahoe County any different than proposed, so-called "safe use" sites?
I'm trying hard to find out.
I've not made any secret of the fact that I disagree with the morality of so-called "safe use" or "harm reduction" drug interventions, especially when public money is used to assist people in taking drugs.
Thus my ears perked up recently when I learned that Arapahoe County Public Health is using some of the opioid settlement money our own AG Phil Weiser helped secure to finance a "harm reduction" van. That's him in the picture above speaking about the wonders that he has (helped to) wrought.
I've been dilligently trying to get more information as to exactly what kinds of services this van will be offering, because some news stories are vague on details.
Below I put three different articles that sort of give you a sense of what I can and can't find.
I've also got a call and an email in to Arapahoe County to ask directly. As of this writing I've not heard anything, but I intend to keep trying.
Some of the things that I can read in the articles seem pretty mundane. Frankly, I'm fine with handing out Narcan. I'm also fine with STD testing.
I think that my perked-up ears are justified, however, when I read things like that from the third link below:
"It will also offer a syringe exchange program to reduce the likelihood that people using drugs will contract an infection by using the same needle repeatedly or sharing one. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using sterile syringes reduces a person’s risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis C and other infections. The mobile unit also provides mouth covers and other items that can help reduce a person’s risk of contracting an infection while smoking or snorting substances."
This, to me, tickles right at the edge of my issue above: this is too close for comfort to aiding and abetting behavior that is harmful. I do not want my government (which I help fund) involved in that.
I'm all for helping people seek a path out of addiction. I wish no harm on anyone. I just have an aversion to using my money to help others use. There are other, values-neutral ways to improve the lives of addicts.
I will stay with them to get more details. In particular, I'd like to know if anyone will be using drugs in this van under supervision and/or what the response will be if they catch someone using one of their masks in their exam rooms to "reduce their risk of contracting an infection while smoking or snorting".
https://coloradosun.com/2024/02/28/mobile-harm-reduction/
https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/arapahoe-county-health-department-launches-mobile-drug-abuse-treatment-program/
https://coloradocommunitymedia.com/2024/02/29/arapahoe-county-puts-overdose-prevention-on-wheels/
Keeping your (teachers' union) paymasters happy.
Teachers unions and supporters of public school do not like educational choice. It takes money (and power) from them. It makes them look bad. Just all around don't like them.
Not ones to idly sit by while their union paymasters fumed, a trio of Democrats introduced a bill this week that, while it may not drive a stake into the heart of school choice, will certainly raise the price of poker on it. That bill is linked first below.
I'll leave it to you to read the bill if you're curious, and I've included a Colorado Politics article below the bill link for some more context (not so full of policy and legalese).
I do find one particular provision pretty onerous, however. Quoting the Colorado Politics article, the measure, "Repeals the ability of charter school applicants to seek a second decision from the state board when a local board rejects a charter school application a second time."
There are some districts so threatened by school choice as to give blanket NO's to charter applications, and so the ability to take your case to the state board has acted in the past as a safety valve, a check on the local school board (often made of those very same damned teachers union members that oppose charters).
There is nothing wrong with an appeal, a second set of eyes on a decision. Nothing, that is, unless what you're after is protecting those that donate to your campaign fund and protect you.
Colorado has a tradition of school choice and this has been a boon to students across this state. There are numerous reasons that charters and other independent schools do well. There is no disputing that.
Admittedly (at least in my view) not every bit of this success is due to their unique setup and freedom from some rules compared to public schools, but the point here is not a debate about what makes them a viable option.
The point is that they are, and that bills like this which are teacher union, Democrat lawmaker, and public school attempts to force Harrison Bergeron** -esque rules on charters are petty and meant to make it harder for charter schools AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR STUDENTS.
Perhaps these legislators'' time would be better served making regular schools better instead of making it harder for charters to succeed.
**If you're not familiar, see the third link below.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1363
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/proposed-sweeping-changes-to-colorado-charter-schools-could-divide-democrats/article_98149256-dca2-11ee-88d3-b79c9384d0ff.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron