HB-1215 Redistribution of Lottery Fund

[Oak]

HB-1215 was introduced yesterday. Haven't dived into the numbers yet, but it doesn't sound good for wildlife.

Bill Summary

Current law distributes, to the extent available, the first $3 million of the lottery fund to the outdoor equity fund, the next $3 million to the public school capital construction assistance fund, and any remaining money as follows:

• 25% to the wildlife cash fund;
• 25% to the parks and outdoor recreation cash fund; and
• 50% to the public school capital construction assistance fund.

For the 2024-25 state fiscal year and each state fiscal year thereafter, the bill redistributes, to the extent available, the first $3 million of the lottery fund to the outdoor equity fund, the next $4 million to the public school capital construction assistance fund, and any remaining money as follows:

• 10% to the wildlife cash fund;
• 10% to the parks and outdoor recreation cash fund;
• 30% to the outdoor equity fund; and
• 50% to the public school capital construction assistance fund.

(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

 

[TOGIE]

I feel like should always know this, but what the heck is the outdoor equity fund?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I am not generally opposed to the outdoor equity fund program, however, this seems like taking money from wildlife, parks, and outdoor recreation (where it benefits most all Coloradans) and redistributing toward a DEI focused fund.

At first glance I would oppose this.

 

[noharleyyet]

I feel like should always know this, but what the heck is the outdoor equity fund?

Opinion: Colorado’s Outdoor Equity Grant Program has done immeasurable good but needs more funding to meet community needs

If Colorado truly wants to prioritize equity, then legislators sending $10 million to the OEGP should be near the top of that goal.

coloradosun.com

 

[MTGomer]

Opinion: Colorado’s Outdoor Equity Grant Program has done immeasurable good but needs more funding to meet community needs

If Colorado truly wants to prioritize equity, then legislators sending $10 million to the OEGP should be near the top of that goal.

coloradosun.com

I have more questions.

 

[elkantlers]

 

[seeth07]

So let me get this straight.

In CO, any free citizen of the United States (actually really anybody across the globe) can wander onto any of the parcels of BLM or National Forest. But if you are "BIPOC" or "2TLGBIQA+" (whatever in the heck that actually means) and live within CO you are so handicapped in your life that it is essential to receive public funding from a program to ensure that you are able to go visit and use those national public lands? And now it needs more funds?

This may be the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

 

[mtmuley]

Get out. Before it is too late. mtmuley

 

[seeth07]

Don't get me wrong, there are some public access hurdles and programs that make sense. Like in WI for example, there are programs in place to help promote and get kids in urban areas into the outdoors on public lands. That's great.

But because your left pinky toe is green (I think I deceifered what all that means correctly) you need a special program to help you do that? Come on man.

 

[seeth07]

Broke homeless stoners have no issues it seems in CO finding and using those public lands. I seem to find them almost everytime I visit. What in the heck is their excuse preventing them?

 

[seeth07]

Do you think they are going to target the tag allocation next if they get a victory here? The big game equity set aside? I hear that this group is having an extremely hard time drawing the tags they want so might as well right?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

It’s not so much that these are bad programs in theory, it’s that they shouldn’t pull money from wildlife, parks, and outdoor recreation to fund them.

 

[BuzzH]

Do you think they are going to target the tag allocation next if they get a victory here? The big game equity set aside? I hear that this group is having an extremely hard time drawing the tags they want so might as well right?

You and @Treeshark can be the first recipients.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So let me get this straight.

In CO, any free citizen of the United States (actually really anybody across the globe) can wander onto any of the parcels of BLM or National Forest. But if you are "BIPOC" or "2TLGBIQA+" (whatever in the heck that actually means) and live within CO you are so handicapped in your life that it is essential to receive public funding from a program to ensure that you are able to go visit and use those national public lands? And now it needs more funds?

This may be the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

Do you think they are going to target the tag allocation next if they get a victory here? The big game equity set aside? I hear that this group is having an extremely hard time drawing the tags they want so might as well right?

Stick an R for resident in that sex alphabet and im in

 

[seeth07]

You and @Treeshark can be the first recipients.

Don't qualify as a NR unfortunately and the compromise in session will be to have it come out of the NR allocation. That's how it always seems to go anyways.

 

[Bonasababy]

With hunter numbers declining and the average age getting older, anything that gets more people into it or even just outdoors where they can then appreciate and ultimately support conservation measures is a good thing. We need to start to ignore our prejudices and biases if we want our grandkids to enjoy the same things we do.

That said this seems more targeted than needed--might be better if it went to all minorities or non-traditional users no matter what race or persuasion. Doesn't seem to be the case?

Also there are--or at least there WERE--(perhaps not anymore under Trump from the federal side) 'recruitment" funds available from other places. I would probably ask if this was a need or if there are no other sources to fund the same thing.

How were lottery proceeds initially distributed and how can changes be made to that? You need to get those things out of the hands of legislators. They routinely will keep trying to raid the funds. More often republicans but I have seen people from both parties try to do it.

My state wasn't the first to get into them but the folks pushing it knew the dangers--funding changes have to be passed by a majority vote. Reauthorization votes occur every know and then too--and I'm D#mn proud to say our voters routinely re-authorize by larger majorities than anything or anyone else they vote for!

 

[MTGomer]

Opinion: Colorado’s Outdoor Equity Grant Program has done immeasurable good but needs more funding to meet community needs

If Colorado truly wants to prioritize equity, then legislators sending $10 million to the OEGP should be near the top of that goal.

coloradosun.com

Holy smokes. I just read the whole thing.

They/them is is either a troll or an extreme talented grifter.

They need $10 million in public funds to be siphoned through NGOs to get BIPOC and 2TLGBIQA+ people outside?

At 250/day they could provide 40k 4x4 turo rentals to these people to access the mountains
They probably don’t want to do that though. They probably want to pay the salaries and o/h costs of running NGOs.

When I was a kid, the teachers got mad if someone called someone a Q. What changed? What is 2T? What is A+?

 

[cgasner1]

When I was a kid, the teachers got mad if someone called someone a Q. What changed? What is 2T? What is A+?