President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

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
February 05, 2009 07:10 PM UTC

Majority: It's More Than Bigger Offices

  • 17 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Final passage in Senate. Rocky:

Following a long day of debate Wednesday, the Senate voted 19-16 Thursday morning to give final approval to the most far-reaching transportation-funding bill the legislature has considered in years.

Two Democrats who had opposed a provision that allows for increased tolling – Sen. Morgan Carroll of Aurora and Lois Tochtrop of Thornton – joined with Republicans in voting against Senate Bill 108, known as the “Faster” bill.

The measure, if passed through the House and signed by Gov. Bill Ritter, would increase vehicle-registration fees for most drivers $41 a year by 2011 to raise some $265 million for road and bridge repairs. It also would study the possibility of tolling existing roads.

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, warned that he expects the fees to be challenged in court as an unconstitutional tax hike, much like a 2007 bill that froze falling property-tax rates was.

Ultimately, the battle over Governor Ritter’s centerpiece transportation bill this session, Senate Bill 108, wasn’t much of a battle at all. As the Denver Post reports:

As state senators gather today to give a major roads bill final consideration, Republicans have pledged to withhold support now that the proposal once again allows tolls on existing roads.

The Democrat-backed bill, dubbed FASTER, went through a series of changes in hours of contentious debate Wednesday, but one of the last changes ended any chance of a bipartisan agreement, some say.

Republicans and a handful of Democrats first voted to remove provisions allowing local authorities to toll existing roads. After a break in the debate, the bill sponsor and Democratic leaders put the provisions back in, and Senate Bill 108 was passed on a 21-14 party-line vote.

That was the deal breaker, said Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction.

“We feel like they’ve made a strategic decision to power this through,” Penry said. “In the end this bill is substantially the same as when it was introduced.”

Bill sponsor Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, lamented the loss of bipartisan support but said he felt his side had compromised enough…

Democrats said Wednesday that it’s the Republicans who wouldn’t budge.

They listed a series of concessions, some they gave voluntarily and some won when their own caucus members voted with Republicans.

Democrats agreed to phase in registration-fee increases, allowed a bonding-like funding mechanism favored by Republicans and removed pilot programs allowing cities to charge drivers by the mile.

They were even willing to come down on registration fees, said Democrat Sen. Chris Romer.

But as the day wore on, two things became clear: the dissenting Democrats–in a powerful position with just enough votes to swing the chamber, as demonstrated–could be reasoned and negotiated with, with a number of moderate Republicans like Sen. Al White who gamely tried to get his caucus serious about making a deal. But GOP leadership, led by Josh Penry, would have none of it. They weren’t serious about wanting to negotiate. And in the end, the concessions that had been offered them were too far-reaching to leave in the bill when the goal of putting them there (meaningful GOP support) was never legitimately on the table.

Them’s the breaks, stubborn minority: negotiations are certainly preferable, but once they have run their course without good faith from the other side, the majority is free to conclude they are optional. Though this is far from the end of the long road for the FASTER bill, Republicans had a chance this round to get a compromise they could live with–and blew it all by themselves, Post reporter Jessica Fender’s cornball “frustration shared by many” spin control (see article’s conclusion) notwithstanding.

Tweet
Share

Comments

17 thoughts on “Majority: It’s More Than Bigger Offices”

    2. I’m not opposed to the concept of tolls, given the budget fix we’re in, but in practice how is this supposed to work? Does this mean a road like Sheridan can be tolled by every local jurisdiction it passes through? Is everyone going to have to buy transponders? Looking for some info here.  

    3. the idea of paying for a road you’re already paying for through other taxes doesn’t sit too well.  That’s the complaint with bridge tolls in the Bay Area…  

      1. 1) the roads are not being paid for by the other taxes sufficiently, as the state is still struggling to find money

        2) drivers paying for roads directly frees up other money to pay for other sorts of transportation, which in the long run may be better

        Though obviously people are going to complain, I don’t think their complaints are justified.

        1. the complaints are dumb…but they exist anyway.  And a lot of people share them.

          If we could raise the gas tax to cover the transportation budget like it did 15 years ago that would be a better option, IMO.  Obviously, that’s not happening any time soon…

      2. Other than the gas tax, what other taxes are designated for road work? Does the gas tax pay enough to cover all road work? If not, then are we currently paying for road work out of general funds?

        Just seeking some clarification here…  

        1. AFAIK, at one point the gas tax covered most of the transportation budget.  But that $.225 hasn’t gone up in forever and a half.

          Other than that, I don’t really know.

        2. The federal and state gas taxes fund most of the transportation budget, but CDOT has received about $200 million a year from the general fund for the last several years to supplement that (for a total budget of about

          $1B).  That supplement is now gone, and combined with the fact that TREX bond payments are now chewing up a sizable chunk of the gas tax (and maintenance of existing roads is ever increasing) CDOT has very little money for new construction.  At some point in the next couple of years or so, maintenance needs will consume even more and new construction will virtually dry up (absent new revenues and/or federal stimulus money).

          The sad thing is that FASTER creates substantial new bureaucracy that could be avoided completely by raising the state gas tax 10 cents or so.  This is an extremely inefficient way to obtain new revenues.  

  2. Democrats make concessions to try to get Republican votes, Republicans refuse to vote for the package anyway, so Democrats put the good stuff back in. No reason to pass a crappy compromise for bipartisan good feeling.

  3. Republicans put Colorado’s own E .B. Farnham in as Senate Minority Leader. When you do not possess the requisite skills for compromise and sound policy to move Colorado forward, just be an obstinate, contumacious prick.  Penry’s impotence, as defined by The Daily Sentinel’s Gary Harmon as being nothing much more than a “cup to the wall”,  exemplifies the Colorado Republican Party’s tired and failed path of putting ideology ahead of the needs of the people of Colorado.  And they install low-skill errand boys to carry that water.  But hey, being a hand puppet for out-of-state interests may be enough in Penry’s world.

        1. Congestion pricing (which is a manner of charging for roads) is in fact a generally liberal policy because it is environmentally friendly, is apparently good on gender issues (women are more likely to work when transit times are better or something), and it is not necessarily bad economic justice since the poorest often do not own cars or use mass transit, which might benefit from the additional funding from such a “toll.”

          Not that congestion pricing is what was at stake here.

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

103 readers online now

Newsletter

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