We have passed the time were legislators can no longer simply submit bills, yes the madness has, somewhat, come to an end…well, except for the boxcars.

For those of you who don’t know, a “boxcar” is a bill that has been “numbered and titled” but does not have anything in it. In other words, if you think of a bill as a book, a boxcar would be one with a cover and a title, but contain nothing but blank pages. Legislators do this for two main reasons – either they want to delay time to mount opposition to a bill or they have not lined up enough support to pass a bill…yet.  In either case, boxcars are scary things because we know that the legislator is up to something, but all we have is a bill title that will only leave us guessing.

It is for this reason that I would like to draw your attention to the following bill titles that hold plenty of interest, but are lacking in actual substance:

HB 329 – Campaign Finance Amendments, B. Ferry
HB 358 – Voting by Mail, N. Hansen
HB 360 – Public Education Grants, K. Sumsion
HB 368 – Election Day Voting Centers, R. Chavez-Houck
HB 372 – Wrongful Death of Unborn Child, C. Wimmer
HB 405 – Transportation Surcharge, D. Ipson
HB 415 – Email Communications, K. Powell
HB 432 – Hate Crime Amendments, S. Sandstrom
HB 433 – Foreign Exchange Student Amendments, C. Wimmer
HB 376 – Monkeys as Pets, C. Herrod
HB 392 – Zero Based Budgets for State Agencies, C. Frank
SB 187 - Requirements for Initiative and Referenda Circulation, W. Niederhauser
SB 193 – Redistricting Advisory Committee, C. Bramble
SB 204 – Mid-Term Vacancy Amendments, B. McAdams
SB 215 – Transportation Revisions, B. McAdams
SB 226 – Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Amendments, C. Bramble
SB 227 – State Energy Amendments, C. Bramble
SB 233 – Wolf Management Act, A. Christensen
SB 255 – State Symbols Amendments, G. Davis
SB 261 – Ethics Amendments, S. Jenkins

At the time of publishing, all of these bills sit silent – if something changes and is interesting, I will be sure to let you know.

The bill itself basically cleans up a bit of a loophole in our current state law that formerly allowed people who intend to change the usage of a property (say from building a monster home to changing the zoning from residential to commercial) to make a public notice no less than 10 days in a newspaper or 3 days through standard mail.

This bill reflects that all to sad fact that you people are online reading blogs and not newspapers anymore, furthermore, it reflects the fact that mailing is a very good way to ensure that people are taken by surprise and don’t have the time to raise any objections they may have to you building a 400 watchtower with floodlights in your backyard.

Is this a sexy bill? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But it is one of those bills that prove that your legislators really do try to work for you, not just in their own interests.

And that really is the point of HB 222. You need to talk to your legislators and tell them what you think.  You need to let them know that something isn’t right in your community and that it needs fixing…basically, every time you ever think to yourself “there aught to be a law” keep in mind that there are people in your neighborhood who could actually follow up on it.

Click here to contact Representative Beck.

Ah, but this process has become somewhat perverted over the years. Now the public good is obvious when we are talking about a power plant or stadium, but lately the trend has been to convert blighted or near blighted neighborhoods into shopping centers or civic areas. A good can be argued, but often times developers push strong for lower appraisals so that they don’t have pay as much to snatch up the land. Because these property owners, by their inherent nature, are poor, it is unlikely that they will fight it in court and developers, ultimately, get to bully hard working people.

That is where Craig Frank’s (R-Cedar Hills-District 57) HB 210 – Eminent Domain Modifications, comes into play.

This bill basically states that if a judge rules that an appraisal is unreasonably low, the property owner does not have to pay for the inevitable court costs associated with fighting the case (the exact number is if the judge rules the property is worth more than 5% of the appraisal). So, if my property and land is worth $100,000 and the government says it is worth $80,000, I wouldn’t have to pay for the court fees associated with fighting the case, presuming that the judge agreed to the $100,000 price tag.

All of this is done to protect the little guy who can’t afford to fight on their own and ensures that things stay on the up and up; this bill is good policy.

Click here to contact Representative Frank

So, one of the worst kept Democratic secrets this year was that business owner Sam Granato intended to run for US Senate and take Senator Bennet’s seat. Today Granato made his announcement official on the steps of his Redwood store and I, for one, am pleased to see a Democratic candidate step up this early in the election season – after all, we are a good 15 months away from the election.  I am sure that my constant complaining that we start to late in the game was the genesis for this – sure I have no proof of this, nor did I do anything to prod Granato into running, but let me just have my warm fuzzy feeling!

The big question now is what will Pete Ashdown do? We know that Ashdown has his eye on the Senate as well, but does he feel that this is his year? I have no doubt that Ashdown is going to run for something, and I suspect that he would make quite a splash no matter what section of the ticket he appears on.

One thing is for certain, if Ashdown is going to run for Senate, things will get interesting within the Democratic Party and in the general race.  Ashdown is well known and liked amongst the general Democratic population, while Granato should be able to fundraise well and put together his own solid policy pieces. Both candidates are business owners, making it difficult for the inevitable Republican challenger to point out that they dislike small business; both candidates have political experience, either dealing with the DABC or by previously running for office; and both candidates are Democrats and, therefore, infinitely better than what the Republicans will throw out.

I, for one, feel that a chalange would be good for both candidates (as I feel is the case in any election). Interparty races force candidates to hone their message and the victor will be forced to consider the ideas of the looser – challenges make for a healthy democracy and create stronger candidates; and if there is one thing we need as Democrats, it is a stronger candidate.

So keep your eye on both Granato and Ashdown.  If I were Granato, I would start to put together a solid fundraising plan and platform; if I were Ashdown, I would do the soul searching necessary before running, but to come to a decision in no more than six weeks; if and when he decides to run against Granato.

This summer might be exciting, politically, after all! I, for one, think both would be excellent opponents to Bennett, Shurtleff, and Bridgewater on the right.

Now I frequent two stores, the one near my home and the one that is open into the wee hours of the evening – 10:00 PM. Naturally, it being eight something I figured I would try the close one first. This, as it turned out, would be the wrong choice as I had missed closing time by over an hour.

So my friend and I hop back into the car and head downtown to the open late store…you know, the one that is half the size? Well we get there and find a higher than average amount of sinners all wishing to purchase their own supplies for various parties – all the while it never dawning on me that the Super Bowl was today.

So there we are, in something the size of a large apartment, all trying to get in and get out with barely any room to move. Now I know my friend and I decided that we were not going to buy an extra bottle simply because the lines were too intimidating and we just wanted to get in and out quicker. Now imagine, if you will, if every one in five people made the same decision that night – add on top of this the people who looked in the parking lot and decided not to go in in the first place. We are now literally talking about thousands of tax dollars to the state lost because one location had to absorb its own clientele plus the people who lived north of it.

Now you can give me all the arguments you want about how we should not be drinking much any way. But the majority of the people buying liquor yesterday are consuming it today and sticking around at their buddies house for a while – they are not leaving the bar once closing time comes around.

Instead of talking about Zion curtains and private club memberships, we should be having a frank and honest discussion about supply and demand. This, I feel is where the majority of legislators fall short – they simply don’t understand how difficult it actually is to gain access to a legal product that the state makes almost pure profit off of.