Two interesting bills to consider, and my Colorado Politics Op Ed asking that the media not get special favors.
Coming from someone who lives in a rural area, I would say that this has the potential to be a good idea, but I have some concerns. What do you think?
The article linked first below details a bill linked second below takes a temporary office (the Rural Opportunity Office) and fixes it permanently into the state.
I am all for rural opportunity. According to the article and the supporters they interviewed, the office has done some good things. I don't have any personal experience with them, but I'll stipulate that the office has helped. Even granting that, I have some concerns.
I.e. I'd file this one under "I like it in principle, but the execution is wanting."
1. It grows government. If you look at the screenshot, taken from the bill's fiscal note, you'll see the increase of money and people that would be required to continue this office once the Federal grant money currently funding it runs out.
2. I am concerned about the oversight here. To quote from the Colorado Politics article below:
"As with many of the dozen offices created during the Polis administration, the bill does not require the office to report its activities through any oversight committee. However, the office is accountable to its federal funders on the grants, and reports to the economic development commission, a subdivision of OEDIT, according to office staff. If funded by the state, they could also be included in OEDIT's reporting to the Joint Budget Committee and potentially to the joint business committees as part of the annual SMART Act hearings."
There is some oversight here, but in my experience with other state offices and agencies, it won't be enough. This will be just another line item among many (too many because offices like these are flourishing with the growth of the state government).
I don't see anything that makes my personal concerns unfixable, but I wonder if there's any desire to. From what the Colorado Politics article says, it passed out of committee unanimously so perhaps my concerns are not shared.
At any rate, if you have strong feelings about it, check out the bill page below for updates as to where the bill is and who to direct comment to first.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/legislature/rural-opportunity-office-bill-clears-first-committee/article_69770a9e-9dbc-11ed-8f17-e3db8d6c81f3.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023A/bills/fn/2023a_sb006_00.pdf
Another idea that has the potential to be a good bill, if done right.
An interesting idea, if it could be done well.
The attached screenshot is from the fiscal note of the bill below. I'll leave it to you to read up on it, but the gist is that the bill would allow for tenants to take their screening report with them when they apply to more than one landlord as a tenant.
As in the previous post, I like the idea, but the devil is in the details.
Almost all I see in the summary and fiscal note seems fair to me. I.e. I don't see anything in either that unfairly advantages one party (tenant or landlord) over the other. I don't see anything that would put a huge cost burden on either party.
Except for what is quoted from the bill summary (off the main bill page) below.
"If a prospective tenant's rental application is denied, and the landlord charged the prospective tenant an application fee to obtain a consumer report, the landlord shall provide a copy of the consumer report to the prospective tenant, along with a notice of the prospective tenant's right to dispute the accuracy of the consumer report. If the prospective tenant did not pay an application fee for the landlord to obtain a consumer report, the landlord's notice of denial must include either a copy of the consumer report or the agency's contact information and notice of the prospective tenant's right to receive a free copy of the consumer report and to dispute the accuracy of the consumer report."
I see this one as having the potential to be mildly problematic. I mean, I understand the desire to have people be aware of issues on their reports. It's not hard to imagine a situation where the prospective tenant is unaware of a mistake on their report, landlords don't give constructive feedback, and the poor guy ends up finding the mistake the hard way by paying for their own report or repeatedly applying and being denied. I wonder how common a thing this is, however.
After all, outside of the unawares, how many people don't know about their good and bad behavior? Presented with a report after failing, I would think would invite people to fuss and bargain when what is best for everyone is to move on.
Perhaps I'm reaching with that. If the bill moves and passes, I suppose we'll find out.
I don't see enough here to concern me to the point that I'd want to advocate against the bill. I think there is some meat here, but as a homeowner, I am not too worried about the renting process anymore either. If you have strong feelings either way on the bill, the page is linked below so you can follow its progress and speak up.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1099
*** Related:
A bill by Valdez that would make the state responsible for pet damage and prevent landlords from charging a pet deposit.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2023/01/29/valdez-bill-rental-owners-no-pet-deposit-taxpayers-cover-damages/
The press shouldn’t have special favors that you and I don’t get.
A recent op ed of mine on not giving special favors to the press...
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/give-all-the-public-equal-access-to-records-podium/article_86fa8302-a1cc-11ed-8d20-77280e5e2c83.html