CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 04, 2009 10:26 PM UTC

GJ Sentinel Doesn't Report: Penry Cause of Economic Loss to Mesa Cty

  • 32 Comments
  • by: ardy39

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

In the Thursday edition of the GJ Daily Sentinel was a report on how distributions of energy impact revenues have changed.

Garfield County raked in more than $11 million of an $80 million bonanza in energy impact revenues announced by the state Wednesday.

While that was more than the county expected, Mesa County got less than it anticipated, and Grand Junction saw its distribution totals drop from last year because of a change in how funds are distributed.

The formula change is a bit complicated, but DOLA has a decent summary of the changes that were enacted with the passage of HB08-1083.

But who was the Senate sponsor of HB08-1083? If you read the Sentinel, you wouldn’t know. But …

… if you read Colorado Pols, you would know that it was Senator Josh Penry (SD-7).

Briefly, Sen. Penry was the sponsor of a bill that resulted in a loss of nearly $4,000,000 of severance tax funds coming to Mesa County and nearly $2,000,000 of direct distribution funds lost to Grand Junction.

“That is a huge, huge impact on our portion of severance tax, and that surprised us,” [county manager Jon] Peacock said.

Oh, and how did Rep. Steve King (HD-54) vote on this bill? The Sentinel is silent, but now you know he voted “Yes.”

So how does the Sentinel report that the sponsorship and votes from Mesa County’s golden boys contributed to the loss of 6 million dollars to the county and city?

.

It doesn’t.

Now, I think the change in the formula for the impact fund distributions was warranted – Mesa County previously raked in the funds because so many workers lived in the county. However, the major physical and infrastructure impacts were taking place in Garfield County. Some change was certainly necessary to make things more fair.

Thus, to me, what is unsettling is that the Sentinel, which is quick to get Penry’s view for any story that could be negative about Gov. Ritter, chose to not point out the significant roles of the local senator and representative in causing these economic losses to the county.

Tweet
Share

Comments

32 thoughts on “GJ Sentinel Doesn’t Report: Penry Cause of Economic Loss to Mesa Cty”

  1. You pretty much summed up the issue in your second to last last paragraph:

    Now, I think the change in the formula for the impact fund distributions was warranted – Mesa County previously raked in the funds because so many workers lived in the county. However, the major physical and infrastructure impacts were taking place in Garfield County. Some change was certainly necessary to make things more fair.

    What’s your next diary going to be about?  That Bernie Buescher was the prime house sponsor of the bill you apparently supported?

    Pols — please use better judgment when promoting diaries.  This is an embarassment even by your standards.  

    2. Thus, to me, what is unsettling is that the Sentinel, which is quick to get Penry’s view for any story that could be negative about Gov. Ritter, chose to not point out the significant roles of the local senator and representative in causing these economic losses to the county.

      Get over your crush on Josh, TaxCheat.

      I never said I supported this particular bill.

      And even if I did, it doesn’t change that Sen. Penry was the senate sponsor. He owns this law – he loves it even.

      Shouldn’t a newspaper report this since it is having a negative impact on the Senator’s constituents?

      (and no, Buescher was not the House sponsor)

      1. I said second to last paragraph where you admit that the forumla needed to be changed.

        And yes, Bernie Buescher was right in the middle of that bill.  Ask him, he’ll tell you.  Kathleen Curry too.  

        You also might take a look at Josh Penry’s Senate District.  It includes Garfield County.  

        Finally, if you have a problem with the bill that was passed, you might want to take it up with the Severance Tax Interim Committee — you know…the one that was co-chaired by prominent Mesa County Democrat Rebecca Frank.  

        You’re wading in to the deep end here….

            1. includes Garfield County overstates the case…it includes a small fraction of the population of Garfield County.  The smallest percentage of the population, actually.

                    1. yes, the Parachute pimple…or as TaxCheat frames it:

                      You also might take a look at Josh Penry’s Senate District.  It includes Garfield County.  

        2. If TaxCheat or others have to attack me personally rather than provide evidence contrary to my thesis, I can only conclude this is because my evidence, arguments, interpretations and conclusions are sound.

          I wrote the diary, thus I get to decide which paragraphs are most important. And I choose the fourth and last paragraphs. If you don’t like it, write your own diary.

          If Penry & King are going to shed tears over how the Governor’s decisions affect their constituents, it would behoove them to have an unblemished record of protecting the interests of their constituents in SD7 and HD54.

          (BTW, Rep. Curry was the House sponsor of the bill. This is reasonable since this change in redistribution helps her constituents. Penry’s, not so much.)

          1. what, are you a doctoral candidate?

            Here’s your ‘thesis’ in a nutshell:

            – GJS wrote a piece about a change to the direct distribution formula resulting from HB1083.

            – Some of Penry’s district lost money because of the formula change.

            – The GJS didn’t mention Penry.

            – GJS must be covering up for Penry.

            a) well, duh.

            b) see a.

            ardy, the GJS isn’t worth wrapping fish in. The only news here is people now know numbers based on a new formula.

            ps. Jon Peacock professed surprise about the revenue loss is BS. He and Meis knew it was coming.

    4. On the one hand, he slams Gov. Ritter for closing part of a state facility and on the other sponsors and votes for a bill that costs his constituents $6 million in impact funds and then turns around slams the Governor for accepting federal stimulus funds. In my humble opinion, his inexperience and clear lack of knowledge about state government is shining through.

      As a member of the General Assembly, he has the reponsibility to read and understand legislation and know the specific impact on his constituents and especially the legislation he sponsors. Mr. Penry committed a collosal blunder.

      1. Considering that Senator Penry’s constituents are in Mesa AND Garfield County, did he really “cost his constituents $6 million” as you suggest?

        Again, the bill referenced above came out of the bi-partisan recommendations made by the Severance Tax Interim Committee.  

        This is an interesting attempt at spin from the Ritter camp — trying to divert attention from their raid on severance tax funds to balance the state budget.  

        2. It doesn’t matter whether the recommendation came from a bi-partisan committee or not, and it doesn’t matter that I support Governor Ritter (I do).

          My point is simple, Mr. Penry obviously didn’t know, but should have known, the incredible negative impact on Mesa County which contains the lions share of his district both geographically and in terms of population.

          Mr. Penry committed an obvious and very costly mistake. He should and will be held accountable for it.  

  4. Penry and particularly Steve King leave much to be desired as shining examples of legislators, but this particular criticism is way off base.  The referenced legislation was long overdue and a bipartisan attempt to balance compensation for impacts of energy development.  And Jon Peacock should not be surprised that Mesa County suffered a net loss when the law was changed to reflect impacts to jurisdications who host energy development but lack the pillows to house workers.  One of his bosses, Commissioner Craig Meis (himself not a particularly fine example of a caring public servant), was a key member of the study group that developed the new formula.

    Barking up the wrong tree here, Ardy, except perhaps for a wimper about the Sentinel’s failure to include Penry’s role in the legislation.  Plenty to fault Penry, King and Meis about…but not this.  Might better critize Ritter for peeling off impact funds to backfill the state budget at the expense of hammered local governments, for example.

      2. Somebody help me here, how is it newsworthy that the GJ Sentinel isn’t the paragon of journalistic integrity?

        This is a weak diary.  It is no surprise GJS didn’t bring up the politicians’ names.

        BTW, Rep Curry was the House sponsor, don’t see anything about her in the article, nor the diary.  Conspiracy ardy?! You tell me….

        1. Because as you must have missed, in my comment above (that you replied to) I observed that:

          (BTW, Rep. Curry was the House sponsor of the bill. This is reasonable since this change in redistribution helps her constituents. Penry’s, not so much.)

          Thanks for your opinion regarding the weakness of this diary. I’m honored that you felt it necessary to take time out of your Saturday morning to do this. Your attempt at talking down to me was almost humorous. Maybe someone else will consider it worth their time to “help [you] out here.”

          (Oh and BTW, no I’m not a doctoral student. I earned my PhD over a decade ago.)

          1. There were many people involved in passing 1083 and the fact that GJS didn’t mention them IMHO shows the article is about the numbers reflecting the new formula.

            A Penry supporter, of which I am not, could say that Penry was willing to forgo the needs of his constituents so that the formula would better allocate the severance tax dollars to those communities that need them.

            There are always two sides of the story and your diary takes one side and runs with it.

            Weak.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

248 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!