August 7th, 2006

Lakewood Citizens Organize Against Land Swap

From Rita Bertolli of Lakewood, Colo.:

On Friday August 4, Lakewood citizens filed a Notice of Intent to put the breaks on a land trade in the Rooney Valley approved by City Council just a week prior. At a recent public hearing, Lakewood City Council adopted an ordinance to swap 21.8 acres of Iron Springs Park for gulch land owned by the Rooney Valley’s residential developer Carma Inc.

“We are filing a Referendum to repeal the ordinance,” says Lakewood resident Rita Bertolli. “Despite City Manager Mike Rock’s desire to build a mini-Denver Tech Center, it’s outrageous that our City officials would swindle away our parkland in exchange for ditches the developer doesn’t need. At the very least, the people should vote on this.”

The City of Lakewood Charter prohibits City officials from selling parkland without approval by the people. However, the Charter makes no provisions for trading land.

“People have the right to vote on what happens to their public lands,” said Green Mountain resident Beverly Maestas. “The City found a loophole. Every citizen has a right to partake in this decision.”

Proponents of the Referendum have only 45 days to collect 2,700 verified signatures before the City’s ordinance goes into effect making the land swap final. Upon the filing of the signatures, the City can elect to repeal the ordinance or put the ordinance to a vote.

Many Lakewood citizens approached City council at the public hearing, contending that even though acreage is equal in the trade, the parcels’ respective values are not, and the city is getting the shorter end of the deal. “The land [the city owns] is of a higher value than the land down [that the developer owns] because of topography and things like road access,” said Carlo Spano, a resident in the nearby Hutchinson subdivision.

Lakewood City Manager Mike Rock has championed the land swap publicly and was quoted in the press July 28 stating, “The Rooney Valley is the west side’s version of the Denver Tech Center.” Residents, however, are little convinced.

“This is the most significant piece of land left in Lakewood. We’re worried this will ruin the look of the city,” Spano said.

The Rooney Valley development will likely to spur a new interchange at Alameda and C-470 that will be paid for by City of Lakewood and Jefferson County taxpayers. Rooney Valley developer Carma Inc. was a key donor to the “Vote Yes on 2A” campaign in 2005, contributing $5,000 to help raise the sales tax by 1% in the City of Lakewood.

“It was never the intent of the good people who dedicated Iron Springs as parkland to have it traded out for useless ditch land,” Bertolli says. “Right or wrong, it should be the people deciding, not the bureaucrats who accept money from developers for their campaigns.”

# #

For more information, log on to: www.lakewoodvoter.org
Contact Rita Bertolli 720-933-1840
or email ritabertolli@hotmail.com

August 6th, 2006

Candidate for ArapCo Commissioner Offers Strong Position on Eminent Domain

Jim Dyer Writes:

Thoughts Going Into Tuesday’s Primary

As we go into the final weekend before the August 8 primary, I want to thank
everyone who has worked tirelessly on the campaign, those who have contributed so
generously, those who have lent their names and endorsements to my candidacy and to
the many, many Arapahoe County neighbors who have wished me well as we have
campaigned these past several weeks. It is both gratifying and humbling, and I thank
each and every one of you from the bottom of my heart.

There are still many things to do before the polls close on Tuesday, and we will be
campaigning right through the day. If you have not voted by mail or taken advantage
of the designated early polling places, please make sure that you get to the polls
on Tuesday.

Eminent Domain

Several people have asked where I stand on the issue of local government eminent
domain. Eminent domain, the power of government to take private property, is one of
the most powerful tools at the disposal of governments. Its danger lies in its power
to take. Government should never misuse the power of eminent domain to take property
from one person in order to enrich another person. Government should never be
tempted to misuse the power of eminent domain to take a person’s property in order
to foster tax bases and put more tax dollars into the treasury.

During the past two sessions of the legislature, there were several bills that came
before us to enact controls over the use of eminent domain by local governments. I
supported strong controls on the power to condemn private property, and I will
continue that philosophy as your county commissioner. If I err, it will on the side
of preserving private property and the rights of property owners.

Endorsement by The Villager

I am very pleased to share the July 27 editorial endorsement of my candidacy written
by Bob Sweeney in that edition of the Villager. At the end of the editorial, Mr.
Sweeney said:

“When I look at the three candidates - Dyer easily stands out as the leading
contender in the race and has earned the right to continue his strong leadership in
Arapahoe County as County Commissioner in District 2.”

I greatly appreciate the endorsement of the Villager and Mr. Sweeney’s words of
confidence. Let me assure all Arapahoe County voters that I will do my best to live
up to that confidence..

I need and ask for your support to win this primary election. For more information
about me and the things I stand for, please visit my web site at www.jimdyer.us.

Thank you,

Jim Dyer

August 1st, 2006

An update from Lon Robertson of PCEOC

www.pinoncanyon.com

Dear Members,

Now that we’ve had a few days to take a breath after the VERY SUCCESSFUL Support
Rural Colorado Event it’s time to get everyone ‘up to speed’ with where we are now
and what else is coming up.

More of our legislators now have a face to put with the issue. It is harder for
them to decide against us if they have our faces in their minds. We still need to
write them regularly, especially now that there is significant support developing
from their side!

Please take time to write the editor of your local newspapers and tell them how much
it means to have those elected officials and those running for office to come out
here to see us. Thank the attendees in those letters for making the effort to come
out here.

Remind your local leadership (County Commissioners, City Council members, Chamber,
EconomicDevelopment etc.) how important it is for them to fully support us. We’re
in this for the long term. We believe WE CAN AND WILL SUCCEED. Our best chances for
success include those leaders and they need to know how much we rely on them to take
a stand with us. Please do your part to inform all of them.

Things taking place:

We are scheduled and have paid for our booth we will staff at the Colorado State
Fair August 25th through September 4th. If you have some time available and can
assist please let us know. The Arkansas Valley Fair and the Las Animas County Fair
are also going to have information booths that need staffing.

We recently had a nationally televised interview aired on Fox News Channel - fair
and balanced is how some put it that watched! And that is good!

We have had presentations to groups in other areas and will have similar
presentations in local areas soon too. Branson and Lamar are a couple we are
planning on in the next 30 days or so. October 10th is a presentation scheduled in
Colorado Springs for the Sierra Club. More to come so we’ll keep you posted!

Radio, TV and newspapers have been carrying our story, or something associated with
it for over 60 days now, in an almost constant manner.

Trent Loos, radio talk show host is carrying our story with interviews on a regular
biweekly basis now. His show is heard by the majority of 5 mid-western states east
of Colorado.

Tee shirts were a hit at the event, as well as the signs for the yards and along the
road. A tremendous amount of awareness has been raised by them and we hope to
continue to do the same with the bumper stickers! Do you have your sign in your
yard or on your place?

PCEOC is not alone and doesn’t expect to do it alone.

Look at our web site http://www.pinoncanyon.com/opposition.htm and see how many
other groups are supporting our efforts and/or putting forth efforts of their own.
Pretty impressive so many different groups from so many different backgrounds want
the expansion stopped, don’t you agree?

While the PCEOC has a specific and direct plan of attack, as you have witnessed the
past few weeks that doesn’t mean other groups don’t have their own plans. We are
but one of many groups that are pushing in their own way to bring about a halt to
the expansion by the Army. The PCEOC has members that have contacts with other
organizations or are members of other organizations and we are proud of that! And
other groups have members that are a part of the PCEOC. Our goal isn’t to pre-empt
or overshadow anyone else’s efforts and conversely we trust other groups will give
the PCEOC the same consideration. We don’t have to be in the same room or have
meetings that coincide, in fact that would quite likely stifle one or the other’s
ideas or ideals and that doesn’t truly help any of us.

Every group or entity that opposes the expansion is an important aspect of our
overall mutual efforts. If we are to be successful we need everyone. Every group.
Every town. Every City. Every business. They all need to be part of the process for
us to succeed. Someone put it to me this way .”We may not all be in the same car
but we’re all going the same direction.” That says it all! Find a way that works
for you and if you need to change cars that’s OK too, just stay on the road!

So keep up the good work! Write and send a fax or phone the President and
legislators from your state. We’ll soon be putting up a list of state by state
Representatives on the web site with phone and fax numbers to help. There are now
over 600 members with PCEOC and nearly 300 of them have e-mails! This is broadcast
to all of you with e-mails so be sure to pass along to everyone else. We expect to
start a newsletter soon too to get the word to EVERY member.

August 1st, 2006

Rob Doughtery of Pueblo County: What the new toll road proposal means for us

We learned about four days ago that an employee of Kellogg, Brown &
Root (KBR) was contacting the counties along the
Super Slab corridor and asking for information on the landowners in a
three mile wide corridor. HB-1003 which was passed
this year requires that the Super Slab narrow their corridor to three
miles (from twelve) and notify the owners. One
possibility was that Ray Wells was just bringing his corporate filing
into compliance with the new laws but had no
present intention to build the Super Slab. It turns out that was just
wishful thinking. Robert Thomasson of the High
Plains Coalition for Responsible Transportation Policy spoke to Ray
Wells on Monday and was told that his plan is to
move forward with the project now. And he says that his plans include a
railroad along with the toll road. I have
included Robert’s blog message below.

I have submitted several questions concerning the Super Slab to the two
gubernatorial candidates. They are both known to
be opposed to it but I’m asking them to explain their positions in more
detail. As the one who appoints the Executive
Director of CDOT and sets the transportation policy for the state, the
governor’s support would seem to be necessary for
any company wanting to form a public-private-initiative (PPI) with
CDOT. Without a PPI a company can’t use eminent
domain to obtain the land they need. Both campaign managers have
responded and will send statements from their
candidates in the next few days.

Sharon Croghan has obtained a corridor map for Weld County that shows
the outlines of all parcels of land in the
corridor. This map is a bit different than the one we got a few months
ago. For one thing it now passes north of Nunn
rather than south. I’ve added it to the page with the Pueblo map at:
http://www.stupidslab.com/halliburton01.htm

Rob Dougherty - Pueblo County

www.stupidslab.com

August 1st, 2006

Marsha Looper of CCPR: the latest on the Front Range Toll Road

Hello property owners;

We must continue to be vigilant and stay on top of the Front Range Toll Road and their land and water grab. Here are a couple of notes from Robert Thomasson from Elbert County. I should have a current copy of the FRTR map for El Paso County on my website in the next couple of days. I also have a list of the possible affected properties in El Paso County. If you have any questions, please contact me at 238-5600.

Respectfully, Marsha Looper

An update from Robert Thomasson, and some corrections to Saturday’s Update.

Fellow Warriors,

I spoke with Ray Wells this afternoon. He returned a call that I had placed to him on the day that I learned that he had engaged Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to move forward with the Front Range Toll Road. With the statutory protections we have in place, I felt that speaking directly to the source was in our best interest. I learned a few things.

First, I asked Mr. Wells if he was going ahead with the project. He spoke with a confidence that would suggest that there are no obstacles in the way of the project. Yes, he is moving ahead. Wells says he is determined to comply with all of the requirements that are in the new laws. He says he never intended to give any other impression than that his desire was to work with communities along the route. He tried to assure me that the road will help us, not hurt us.

I then asked Mr. Wells if he still intended to try and build a companion railroad. He told me that the road cannot be built without the railroad. He told me that he was confident that the State would approve his plan with the rails. He is using the buzz phrase, “multi-modal- transportation corridors.” This is language that is being tossed around in many states. It is designed, in my opinion, to try to dismiss the current transportation building practices as being outdated. It appears that the approach Wells will take is to try and convince transportation planners that roads are much more than concrete pathways. I believe he will argue that today’s roads should be thought of as corridors that will carry goods, people, fuel, electricity and information. Roads are not roads anymore. We have long expected this.

I talked to him about CDOT being only able to use its condemnation powers from shoulder to shoulder. I asked him if he was basing the whole project on CDOT and planners accepting the rails. He said he could build the railroad anyway because of his railroad rights with Flat Penny. He stated that he has condemnation powers as a railroad company. When I pressed him a bit further on his ability to prove need for a railway, he changed the subject. He said it was unlikely he would have to use that power because the CDOT/PPI would adopt his rail plan.

I asked Wells about going around John Malone and leaving the FRTR corridor. He said he did not avoid Malone. He just wanted to avoid a 380 foot cut in the wall of the Bijou basin and that the Malone thing was just a coincidence. He also told me that he had purchased JICRO and JICRA. He made a deal with William Tolbert. I of course have seen no evidence of this on the Secretary of State’s web site. I did not ask if he has purchased the KIWI corridors.

He has not re-filed his articles of incorporation and was not intending to do it until sometime later before September 6th. He said he was preparing letters of notification through KBR and they would not be sent until his re-filing. The route is nearly the same as the last one that the TRW posted (stupidslab.com) during the legislative session that was narrowed to three miles. There are minor changes in Pueblo and further north along the corridor.

All counties have been contacted for ownership of parcels and tax identification information. Each county has been given route maps. Some counties have finished providing him with the requested information. He has been in contact with various county commissioners, but he did not elaborate specifically on which ones. He was able to talk about the financial woes of Elbert County and needs that we may have. He seemed concerned about the lack of money that Elbert County had for its schools. He was certain that the road might be a vital part of financial solutions in fiscally distressed counties. He assured me he had nothing inappropriate in mind.

I told him we intended to be vigilant and to rest assured we were watching his every move to make sure he followed all of the requirements. I told him we would be involved at every level allowable and that we intended to have our concerns addressed. He said he was okay with all of that.

We are about to test just how strong the three pieces of legislation we helped to put in place really are. We are up against Ray and one of the wealthiest corporations on the planet. Suffice it to say, KBR and its parent company Halliburton have a reputation. Some believe them to be corrupt. Some believe they are the best in the world. I just think we have to be on our toes.
In the words of Dorothy, “We’re not in Kansas any more, Toto!”

Robert Thomasson

Correction:

On Saturday, I posted a blog (and Patty forwarded a TR Warrior Update) about Wells retained Halliburton to identify property owners in the Front Range Toll Road corridor across the eastern plains of Colorado. TR Warrior Rick Brown (Elbert) was kind enough to point out a few details in that entry which need clarification. Please read on:

I wrote that ‘C-Dot will have to prove a need for the toll road in order to proceed.’ WRONG. The toll road company bears most of the responsibility, and the expenses, of meeting environmental requirements, obtaining amendments of regional and state transportation plans, demonstrating the project is necessary to meet the transportation needs of the state and is in the public interest, etc. Not C-Dot, but the toll road company.

Second, I provided a scenario where the land for the toll road would be privately purchased. It is, I admit, a far-fetched possibility, but one, none the less. Rick made it clear that, even if ALL the land was purchased, and not through condemnation proceedings with C-Dot through a PPI, the toll road company would still have to comply with the planning and environmental requirements of HB06-1003.

Last, here’s more technical information taken from the new legislation which clarifies our position: (Thanks again, Rick.)

A review of the relevant portions of the bill reveals that they are not conditioned on land acquisition through condemnation but apply to any “toll road or toll highway project” undertaken by a “toll road or toll highway company”. See, e.g., C.R.S. secs. 7-45-105(1); 7-45-106(1); 7-45-107. Furthermore, the definition of “toll road” or “toll highway” is not confined to projects whose right-of-ways are obtained through condemnation. SEE C.R.S. sec. 7-45-102(8). The same observation applies to SB 115, as amended by HB 1003. SEE C.R.S. sec. 38-2-101(3), (4).

Tollman