7 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

1. Your own un-private Idaho.

   House Bill 242, which passed through the state House and is likely to move quickly through the Senate, seeks to limit minors’ ability to travel for abortion care without parental consent. The legislation would create a whole new crime — dubbed “abortion trafficking” — which is defined in the bill as an “adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion … or obtains an abortion-inducing drug” for the minor. “Recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking,” the legislation adds.

   Log in to Reply

2. For anyone who thinks Dems don't play hardball, here's state Senator Julie Gonzales carrying a big bat, from Twitter:

   I'm in cmte (committee) and one of the Principals of Westside Investment just testified against HB23-1090, prohibiting conflicts of interests for metro districts' boards of directors. So with that, I can no longer in good conscience support 2O on the Park Hill Golf Course.

   Log in to Reply

   1. And this kind of late-breaking news is why I haven't submitted my ballot yet. 

      Log in to Reply

      1. They call it the "last week in March surprise" in municipal politics!

         Log in to Reply

   2. Yes, and unfortunately, the committee nevertheless killed the bill prohibiting the conflict of interest that developers love when it comes to Metro Tax Districts and buying their own bonds.

      I believe we should charter a public bank to underwrite infrastructure and other common public services that would lower the ultimate costs to borrowers and taxpayers (think student loans).

      In the case of Westside and their proposed PHGC development, if they win the 2 O vote, they plan to issue $117 million in private bonds (some of which they are free to purchase for themselves), but only yielding $84 million in net proceeds to fund the missing water, sewer, power, sidewalks and roads on the 155 acre green space.  They will refinance those bonds after 10 years, increasing the debt load, and extending it for a total of 40 years that will burden property owners with a private tax surcharge that is nearly twice that of most other Denver homeowners.

      The debt burden will be authorized by the tightly-held metro district board made up of insiders long before the first homeowner is able to take a step inside their new home.  

      So with 2 O, they are asking Denver voters to replace the $184 million perpetual conservation easement with $117 million perpetual private property tax surcharge.

      That is just one of the many reasons I have devoted the last several years to the fight to preserve Denver’s last significant urban green space while development happens around it.  NO on 2 O!

       

      Log in to Reply

      1. I saw one Dem, Sen. Roberts, voted against the bill and he's a rural legislator. I don't know why, I was under the impression metro district conflict of interest was more of an urban concern, but I've been wrong once. Thanks for the info about 2 O!

         Log in to Reply

3. Because it is only gun violence if you agree to call it gun violence …

   'Save the fetus, slaughter the child': House Republican roasted after claiming 'gun violence doesn't exist' (msn.com)

    

   Log in to Reply