Yep, your U-Haul will help fund the dream of passenger rail if Fenberg's bill passes. CPR asks those here illegally about the current border crisis. Will they ask those here legally?
Yep, that U-Haul you rent to move will be helping to pay for the dream of passenger rail in this state.
We finally have details on Senator Fenberg's rental car to pay for passenger rail bill. For your reference, I put links to a recent CPR article on the bill along with the actual bill text below as links 1 and 2.
And yes, as I say above, any kind of vehicle rental, including that moving van, will have an increased fee assessed with that money going to an existing state enterprise.
I spend a fair bit of time writing about fees and enterprises (government run businesses), but I don't know that I've ever peeled back the curtain on how these things are justified by the politicians that like them. Let's fix that.
An enterprise is an end run around TABOR and allows the government to take your money without your permission (something TABOR should prevent).
This stems from a series of Colorado Supreme Court decisions that essentially said that if the government creates an entity that takes your money, doesn't throw it in the general fund, and gives you some specific service for that money, they haven't created a tax.
I'm not sure your wallet cares, but this is what our court said.
If you look in the bill starting on p 20, you'll see what I've attached in screenshots 1 to 3. This is a typical rationale and required legal language in a post-enterprise Colorado. Give it a quick look.
What you'll see there is what I mentioned above. It's the legislature making the case that what they're doing meets the definition of an enterprise. It's the rationale they are building for why what they're doing is different than a tax.
Essential to the argument that a fee levied by an enterprise is the idea that somehow those who get stuck paying the fee benefit; in its way it's analogous to the idea that when you walk into a store and exchange money for a loaf of Wonder you've benefitted--you got the bread.
If you revisit and look carefully at the text in screenshots 1 to 3, the fundamental argument, the logic justifying this as an enterprise is that ...
--passenger rail is a part of our state's transportation network (or will be)
--passenger rail will benefit not just those that use it, but also that we all benefit because with train riders not driving our roads will be better, we'll have less congestion, and we'll all have cleaner air (which will, of course and inevitably) lead to better health.
--These rates will be "reasonably calculated by the Transportation Enterprise Board based on the costs of providing the benefits provided to user fee payers and the costs of remediating the impacts caused by the fee payers."
If you think that this sounds rather a stretch and speculative, you and I think alike. After all, how do you think the answers would look to the questions below?
How sure are we that this rail will get widely used?
How much cleaner will our air be?
How much better will our roads be?
How much less congestion will there be?
For God's sake explain to me how it is that U-Haul trucks are aided by passenger rail?
How on earth will a group of political appointees quantify any of this? How will they put a price on it?
Would that we could all of us simply state something as a fact and get money for it without ever having to demonstrate the truth of our assertions. God bless you for our wisdom in creating this standard Colorado Supreme Court.
Lastly, let's talk a little about the nuts and bolts here. This bill expands an existing enterprise, the Colorado Transportation Investment Office funded through your FASTER fees--see the third link below.
This existing enterprise is run by a group of CDOT employees and governor appointees (which come from the Front Range and I-70 mountain corridor). See screenshot 4 for the current board members.
This enterprise was created to, according to its own website, "... aggressively seek out opportunities for innovative and efficient means of financing and delivering important surface transportation infrastructure projects in the state. It has the statutory power, among others, to impose tolls and other user fees, to issue bonds, and to enter into contracts with public and private entities to facilitate Public-Private Partnerships (P3s)."
Feel like surface infrastructure projects near you have been delivered? Maybe in spots along the Front Range where they have toll lanes to help expand the major highways through Denver, but they can't even really keep up with potholes where I live. And I still pay their fees.
And that's really the point isn't it? I mean besides the absurdity of the claims made about how much value you and I will all get for our money, that somehow this is a business that gives us something, we can also toss on the pile the fact that you and I have no other choice than to support this government "business" regardless of how well they're doing.
I guess unless you didn't need to rent a car or a U-Haul that is (or pay your existing FASTER fees to register your own car, something you already have to do).
This bill is up for it's first hearing this Wednesday and I sent the email you see in screenshots 5a and 5b to the sponsors and the Senate Transportation Committee.
I hope to testify in person and read out some of my comments to them if the timing works.
If you'd like to join me, you'll find the bill page linked fourth below.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/03/20/bill-extra-rental-car-fees-to-fund-colorado-railway-expansion-transit-projects/
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_184_01.pdf
https://www.codot.gov/programs/ctio
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-184
CPR asks those here illegally what they think about the current immigration situation in Colorado.
Are they going to follow up by asking what legal immigrants think?
I have known and worked with immigrants of all kinds. Both those here illegally and those here legally.
I've also not made any secret about my thoughts on immigration or my ambivalence about those here illegally (prior to the current border crisis).
There is one group that we don't often hear from amid the nightmare coverage on conservative news sites and the sympathetic coverage on left-leaning sites--those who immigrated here legally.
I find the absence of their voices curious. They would certainly have thoughts on the matter and would be worth hearing from.
I make no presupposition here either. I'm sure that opinion is probably as divided among that group as any other. A full discussion, a complete look should by rights include them.
I emailed the reporter at CPR to ask if they had any plans to do a story similar to the one linked below on those here legally and their thoughts. As of this writing, I've not heard back. If that changes I'll update.
In the meantime, the lesson here is the same one that I've taught many times now. As you read the news or listen to things, ask yourself who you are hearing from, and who you aren't.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/03/21/undocumented-coloradans-here-for-decades-legal-status-new-immigrants/