5-9-24 *INTERVIEW* Republican Candidate for Colorado's 8th Congressional District Gabe Evans

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Normally when the state legislature is insession. Given the composition the state legislature
these days, I routinely tell youwe are keeping an eye out for what
the state, what the government isdoing to us, rather than what the
government is doing for us. Democratshave such a dominant position in state government
that the best Republicans can do rightnow is to have the Democrats do a

(00:23):
little bit less to hurt us thanthey otherwise would. Joining us talk about
some of the highlights and low lightsof the just completed like last night,
just completed twenty twenty four legislative sessionis State Rep. Gabe Evans. Gabe
represents District forty eight in the ColoradoState House of Representatives. He is a

(00:45):
former US Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot anda ten year veteran of the Arvada PD
and he's also running for Congress,seeking the Republican nomination to then challenge the
incumbent in the eighth congressional district tocolorad out of his newest congressional district.
Gave Gabe welcome back to the show. It's good to talk to you again.
Always great to be on with you. Thanks for having me and just

(01:07):
before we get to the nuts andbolts, I would like to make sure
to have you tell my listeners thegeographic glary that you represent. Yeah,
State House District forty eight. It'sthe edge of Commerce City up to the
edge of Greeley and Adams and WeldCounties. Very good, all right?
So when don't we start with themacro good, bad, or ugly?
How would you describe this session overall? Well, like you mentioned, Democrats

(01:34):
have a super majority in the stateHouse, They're one vote away from a
supermajority in the state Senate. Theyown every statewide elected position in Colorado right
now. So really all we cando is just try to mitigate some of
the damage. Some of the bigareas that we saw under attack this session
was local government. Honestly, thestate the ruling Democrats have decided that they're

(01:55):
not even really okay with local governmentshaving authority to make decisions and be directly
accountable to their voter as that lowestand most connected level of government. They
want to centralized power in the state. So in areas around housing and regulation
and just every area that you canthink of. They ran bills this year
over seven hundred pieces of legislation introducedcentralized power at the state level, oftentimes

(02:20):
by stripping it away from local governments. Give us a couple of specific examples
of where you're seeing the state goafter local control. And let me just
remind listeners that Jared Polus and hisfellow Democrats love local control unless you're going
to use it to go in adirection that they don't like, and in
that case they have to take thelocal control away from you. Is there

(02:45):
a bunch, Is there some noisegoing on behind you, Gabe? Nope,
I'm pulled over in my car inan empty parking lot right now,
all right, So that's somewhere.That's somewhere here, dragon, all right,
So give us a sense of wherethey've done this with local control.
Yes, I'll give you two quickexamples. You know, the very last
bill that I fought in this legislativesession up until about seven pm last night,

(03:07):
was a bill that dictated how localgovernments were supposed to regulate the permitting
of electric vehicle charging ports. Andwhat that bill specifically said was that local
governments had to approve these things withinthirty or sixty days. Whenever somebody submitted
this permit. Well, obviously thatconflicts with all of the ret It was
actually kind of funny. It conflictedwith a lot of the other pieces of

(03:29):
the Democrat agenda because what that wouldmean was that somebody shows up and says,
I want to get this EV chargingset up permitted. That permit would
immediately jump the line ahead of anythingelse that that local government was working on.
So the Democrats yell all the timeabout affordable housing, Well, this
EV permitting bill would have said thatthat EV permit charger would have jumped the

(03:51):
line ahead of affordable housing, aheadof roads, ahead of new businesses being
permitted, ahead of basically all theother business of local governments. Because the
Dems want to ram through, youknow, their their evy charging agenda.
Another area that we saw house builtthirteen thirteen. I believe transit oriented communities
requiring local governments to ensure that basicallywithin and I can't remember the radius,

(04:16):
if it's a quarter mile or ahalf mile, but basically around any mass
transit hub or or you know RTDpickup spot, that local governments have to
create housing density of forty units peracre. They got to have forty housing
units per acre near mass transit stopsbecause the governor is absolutely infatuated with not

(04:41):
only mass transit, but trains.Specifically, the hundreds of millions of dollars
that the Democrats scraped from all sectorsof the budget to throw to their train
project this year was just really ridiculous. Let me and these are let me
jump in for a second. Letme play Devil's advocate for a second.
Not on that particular bill, butso, I think the Democrats have a

(05:06):
point that I think most Republicans agreewith that we do have an issue in
Colorado with housing costs being very highand making it difficult for young people to
buy their first homes, and makingit harder for businesses to want to move
here and all this stuff. Sowas there anything done that was bipartisan?

(05:26):
Was there anything done that you supportthat would, even at the margins,
help with housing costs? Yeah,So obviously a very very critical concern for
Colorado's right now. One of thebiggest barriers to housing costs is actually being
able to build the stuff. TheDemocrats will talk a really good game about
how we need to provide this,but then they turn around and impose greater

(05:49):
liability, greater regulation, greater redtape on the folks that are actually trying
to go out and build and buyand sell houses. One of the pieces
of legislation that I was hoping wouldmake it through this session was a bill
to balance out what's called construction defects. So basically, somebody builds a house,

(06:10):
it's a lemon, and how dowe manage making that person whole?
You know that got the crappily puttogether house, but without imposing liability on
the entire industry. And that's reallywhere we're at right now, is that
it's difficult to build new affordable homes, new affordable condominiums because the liability imposed
by the Left to do that isjust it's three times more expensive to ensure

(06:35):
a condo minium building project in Coloradothan any other project. Condos are that
entry level point by which people canbuy a property, build equity in it,
be able to save up for asingle family home or something like that,
and the Left has imposed massive liabilityon that. How about House Build
eleven fifty two, which I knowgot at least some Republican support. I

(06:56):
don't know how you voted on it, but the one that well doesn't let
cities prevent someone from building an accessorydwelling unit on their property. Yeah,
so that if the bill was collaborativewith local governments, I would have had
a lot better feeling about that.Again, I worked for a local government
for ten years and so I knowthat oftentimes one of the biggest friction points

(07:19):
between neighbors in communities is what's theirneighbor doing? And so if the state
had worked collaboratively with local governments tofigure out how more accessory dwelling units could
be built, then yeah, Iwould absolutely have been all for that.
Unfortunately, the way I viewed alarge part of that bill, and again
I know it was bipartisan, butsome of the concerns for me that were

(07:41):
never quite addressed with that is againjust more mandates on what local governments shall
and shall not do, without regardto the fact that local governments are also
duly elected. They're the closest levelof government to the people. So why
is the state creating more mandates ratherthan working collaboratively with them? So I
get that that needs to happen.Yeah, the tone of how the Democrats

(08:03):
did it, I still had someconcerns with. Okay, and I'll play
Devil's advocate on that one as well, because what I really struggle with is
the tension there between local control andperhaps neighborhoods that have had rules for a
long time, and people bought homesand did this and did that based on
those existing rules. But I amalso a true, deep believer in property

(08:24):
rights. And if I've got anacre of land or half an acre of
land, or whatever it might be, and I want to build a little
granny flat there and just like aone story thing, not intrusive, why
should the local government be able totell me I can't build that? And
I agree with you. If thatwas the conversation that we had, then

(08:46):
I think we would have found alot more consensus on that. Unfortunately,
that was not the tone of theconversation. It was the state is going
to tell the local government what todo without being able to as you said,
you know, you got an acrea half an acre, without being
able to really get into the nuancesof what's the difference between a half acre
lot and a five thousand square footlot. Things like that we're talking with

(09:09):
Gabe Evans. He represents House Districtforty eight in the Colorado State House of
Representatives. He's a former US Armyblack Hawk helicopter pilot and he's running for
Congress. His website is elect Gabeevansdot com. I got a few other
things I want I want to talkwith you about. I think one of
the things that has people most concernedand most confused is this so called property

(09:31):
tax relief bill. And I youknow, I had Barb Kirkmeyer on the
show and she's jumping up and downcheering for it, which seems to me
to be a little bit too enthusiastic, even though I know that she's actually
a fiscal conservative, And seems likeRepublicans are out there kind of sell trying
to sell this thing. And Idon't know, Gabe. My take is

(09:52):
the bill isn't very good, butit may be as good as you could
get given who's in control down there. How do you you think about this
bill? That's about that sums itup. We're in the minority or the
super minority. So the level oftax cuts that I would like to see,
yeah, I don't think we're goingto get those underneath our governor who
talks a good game. And then, oh that's right, raised the state

(10:16):
budget from six years ago when hetook office to twenty nine billion to forty
one billion was the budget that wepassed this year. A twelve billion dollar
increase in state spending in just sixyears. Yeah, there's a lot deeper
cuts that I would like to beable to make. As you said,
my view on this is this isthe best that we're going to get in

(10:37):
a completely democrat dominated state. Isa little bit premature, and we don't
know all the details of potential ballotmeasures. But is your gut instinct that
whatever ballot measures come along to furtherhelp taxpayers with property tax reductions, that
likely you would recommend supporting them.I'm always a thing of cutting taxes,

(11:01):
especially when oh that's right, taxes. You know, state spending when up
twelve billion dollars in the last sixyears. Uh huh, the state,
it's got entirely too much money.I'm a fan of any way that we
can cut taxes and fees. Feesis the other thing that they they do
to nickel and dime you to death. What did you make although this passed
in the House, didn't pass inthe Senate, what did you make of
the failure to pass the so calledassault weapons ban? Yeah? So this

(11:26):
is a second year in a rowthat we've seen that legislation. Last year
it didn't make it out of theHouse Judiciary Committee. This way, it
made it all the way to thefloor of the House. It passed the
House, and it went over tothe Senate. And so what that really
highlighted is the fact that Republicans areindependent thinkers. Oftentimes the Democrats are not.
They will vote and march lockstep withhow they're told to vote in march.

(11:50):
And so the particular proponents of thatbill had made enough noise and caused
enough sensation around it so where theygot the rest of their caucus to march
lockstep with them. Even folks thatI know personally disagreed with it wouldn't break
with brank Rakes. And so theyended up passing this thing out of the
House over to the Senate, whereit met its end. But to be

(12:11):
honest, that genuinely concerns me thatthis thing seems like it's going a little
bit farther every year. Yeah,it concerns me too. And I'm not
sure exactly how all the politics ofthat went down in the behind the scenes
shenanigans with the Democratic Party. Butwhen you're reliant on State Senator Tom Sullivan
to protect you from anti Second Amendmentlaw. I mean, that's a pretty

(12:35):
weak place to be that guy.I mean, it's very interesting that he
was basically the guy who stopped this, and I'm going to try to get
him on the show to see ifhe'll explain why. But in any case,
Gabe, there was a whole bunchof anti Second Amendment stuff that did
pass. Are there any that youwant to focus on? Yeah, I

(12:56):
mean, so I'm looking at thelist right now. Some of the mo
more onerous ones firearm dealer requirements andpermits. So that's how it's built twenty
four thirteen fifty three. At thefederal level, firearms, firearms transactions,
gun stores, things like that,if you buy and sell firearms is already
incredibly heavily regulated, and so whatthis bill did is it adds a completely

(13:18):
redundant, separate set of requirements onfirearms dealers, people that buy and sell
firearms. At the state level,more taxes, more fees, more paperwork,
more ways to trip them up withadministrative and bureaucratic hoops that they got
to jump through. And so I'mvery worried that pieces of legislation like that,
you know, like they did withMagpol a decade a goal ago.

(13:39):
You know, they pick and choosewinners and losers in industry, and the
losers in industry they regulate to deathuntil they get them to either leave the
state or you know, just notexist here anymore. We saw that with
oil and gas and domestic energy.They brought a bill this year to literally
ban outright a major energy producing sectorand color that contributes billions of dollars to

(14:01):
our schools, roads our state.We literally balanced the budget this year with
oil and gas money, and theDems don't like it. They try to
ban that industry. And I'm afraidthey're trying to do the same things with
firearms as well, by regulating ourlocal firearms dealers out of business. Right,
and they also added a new taxto guns and ammunition, which is
insane. I guess if we're goingto be glad for anything, it's that

(14:24):
the tax they added was less thanthe initial tax that they proposed. All
Right, I got about one minuteleft here, Gabe. I want you
to just give us a closing overviewof how sane people should think about this
last legislative session. The short answeris that the Democrats in Colorado have not

(14:46):
lost a major contested race. Sowe're talking elections now. They have not
lost a major contested race in almosta decade. So as long as they
are not held accountable at the ballotbox, they're going to continue to govern
the way that we've just talked aboutright now. So if folks would like
to see some balance come back toColorado, that starts with holding Democrats accountable
at the ballot box this November.Again, they have not lost a major

(15:09):
contested race since twenty fourteen, andthey govern like that. They are quite
frankly drunk on power the voters ofColorado. If they want balance, they're
going to need to do a littlebit of holding accountable of the Democrat Party,
and I think that will then bereflected in how they govern next session
down at the state legislature. Icouldn't agree more. And I'll just say

(15:31):
to listeners, I mean, we'reprimarily talking about the state legislature here,
but I expect that, Gabe,you do have primary opponents still, I
know one or two dropped out orare you alone now? No, I
have one opponent left. I washonored to get sixty two percent of the
vote through caucus. But I dohave one one opponent of Ze, so

(15:52):
at the risk of jinxing Gabe,I'll just say I think it's very likely
that Gab will be the Republican nomineefor the eighth congres districts. And that
is one of those it's not statelegislature, it's it's Congress, but that
is one of those very very closelycontested races that a Democrat won just barely
last year. And although I likedthe Republican candidate, she wasn't actually the

(16:17):
one I endorsed. I thought shewas a little bit too far right for
that district, and that district needsa conservative, but not one who is
easily portrayed as a crazy right wingerand has some other things, and Gabe
does with the military service and thepolice service, and you know, I
think Gabe Evans. I think ifthere's anybody who's gonna win that seat for

(16:38):
the Republicans, it's Gabe Evans.Folks. If you want to learn more,
Electgabeevans dot Com is his website.Thanks for being here, Gab,
and thanks for fighting the power asbest you could in the legislature. This
year. I appreciate it. Thelast plug I'll put in there's three competitive
state house seats in the eighth Congressionaldistrict. That's how we start to claw

(16:59):
back the numbers back in Denver.We flipped the eighth. We also probably
pick up three state house seats downin denversa that hopefully we're not having quite
as dire a conversation this time nextyear. From your mouth to God's ear,
Thank you, Gabe,