Sometimes a great idea is so saturated in politics and bureaucracy, it’s hard to soak in the actual good it does.

Insiders call it the poison pill, that bad thing that sours good people on otherwise good legislation.

By now, if you’re fair-minded and plugged in at the Capitol, you probably think I’m teeing up another Bunch-caliber moanfest about the transportation package, Senate Bill 260, which, if we’re being totally fair, it’s a $5.4 billion Trojan Horse.

Yes, it puts some money into roads and bridges, the problems Coloradans see out their windshields, but it hauls a lot of freight for a liberal wish list that statehouse Democrats practically dared fiscal conservatives to vote against, lest they be called anti-infrastructure, dirty words to a Republican.

Statehouse Republicans have been trying, for as long as I’ve been in and out of the statehouse, to get Democrats on board with investing in infrastructure instead of social programs.

The GOP’s wish was the Democrat’s command.

The bill is really an electric car accelerator, an investment in slowing climate change and financing solutions for areas with pollution problems. That’s what kind of bill it is, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

If Democrats had run any one of those bills individually, even with the majorities they have, they would have had a hard time bringing home that bacon. They always have.

If they’d waited until next year, after lawmakers see their new districts drawn by an independent commission to be more competitive, moderate Democratic votes would have been harder to come by – way harder, and don’t think the agenda drivers didn’t know it.

I also might have teed up the pop-and-fizzle public option. The final product wasn’t a competitive insurance policy. It was a threat to create one. If insurers don’t cut premiums by 15% some way, somehow, the government will do it for them … in three years, when it’s somebody else’s political problem, and Gov. Jared Polis will be midway through his final term.

I’m thinking of another public need with a public solution mucked up in the public process, one you probably haven’t heard of.

House Bill 1274 might do a lot of good, or it might be a waste of time, or it might be an extension of bureaucratic power. Make up your own mind.

The new law calls for an appraised inventory of unused state property. That sounds reasonable and surprising it doesn’t already exist. Here’s the kicker: the end goal is to repurpose, sell or lease some of the public’s property.

The possible beneficiaries outlined in the bill might pique your political persuasion: affordable housing, child care, public schools, residential mental and behavioral health care or renewable energy development.

The first time I heard the idea of looking at turning excess public or private property into affordable housing was over lunch with Senate Republican leader Chris Holbert of Douglas County a couple of years ago.

It made perfect sense: Amend the rules to make it easier for commercial real estate to redevelop if they contribute to the stock of affordable housing, which is better than a depreciating asset.

Profitable businesses presumably pay more taxes, so the loop is simple, complete and apolitical. Specific problem, meet direct solution, those who need housing and those who have excess space if the economy shifts to home-based workers. The time is now.

Instead, we have a vague public-property Christmas tree.

The bill didn’t originate on the streets among the people or causes or even a legislator’s head. It originated in the Department of Personnel and Administration.

There’s no money in this new law, just a request for an inventory, and the state architect’s office will decide whether there’s a better deal for it.

The legislative fiscal note suggests some future General Assembly could have to come up with an estimated $400,000 per project “including appraisals, environmental assessments, surveys and other administrative costs.”

“We’re looking at reducing state agencies’ footprint by a million square feet in a five-year period, but we’re also looking at whether there are properties the state wants to look at disposing of, would that be the best use,” state architect Cheri Gerou, a former Republican state representative, told the House Business and Labor Affairs Committee on April 29.

The money from sales and leases would go into a fund to support fixing up other properties, she said. The state also might get into business with private enterprise to solve public needs.

The bill originally gave the legislature’s Capitol Development Committee the right to review projects. As soon as that committee got hold of the bill it was amended to grant the committee the authority to approve projects with the legislature’s blessing on the expense.

In other words, solutions shifted to a future political majority. That currently means four Democrats and two Republicans on the committee. https://leg.colorado.gov/committees/capital-development-committee/2021-regular-session

If all this bureaucracy and promises serve a public good or solve a public need, more power to them. My experience is the more hoops there are to jump through the less hooping goes on.

This sure sounded better to me when Holbert was talking about getting government out of the way of, if not incentivizing, private enterprise to solve a mutual problem. Sometimes we just make getting adequate too dang hard.