June 25th, 2008

The latest on Pinon Canyon: Salazar Brothers Fueding?

FROM POLITICO:

Canyon expansion opens rift in Colo.
By: Patrick O’Connor

June 23, 2008 08:52 PM EST

Colorado lawmakers are feuding over a plan to transform hundreds of miles of arid
grassland into an expanded training facility for the U.S. Army.

The fight over the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site pits a freshman Republican against
one of his top benefactors. It puts strong supporters of the military at odds with
the Pentagon. And it has the Salazar brothers - Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. John T.
Salazar, both Democrats - divided about the right path forward.

The Army wants to expand the site in southeastern Colorado so that it will have
more room for brigade-size training exercises involving thousands of troops from
nearby Fort Carson. But environmentalists and ranchers oppose the Army’s plan,
and Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave calls it “a colossal land grab.”
The Colorado conservative teamed up with Rep. Salazar last year to impose a one-year
moratorium preventing the Army from buying land around the site or completing a
congressionally mandated study on the economic and environmental impact of the planned
expansion.
The two seek another one-year moratorium as part of a military construction bill
scheduled to go before the House Appropriations Committee next week. But their
ban conflicts with an alternate measure - authored by Sen. Salazar and Colorado
Republican Sen. Wayne Allard - requiring the Army to complete a study on the expansion
by the end of July.
But the most public rift in the Pinon Canyon fight is the one between Musgrave,
a potentially vulnerable conservative, and freshman Rep. Doug Lamborn, a fellow
Republican who relied heavily on his GOP colleague to win a tight race in 2006.
Musgrave says the situation has gotten “a little sticky with some of the things
Doug said.”
Musgrave and Lamborn delivered competing proposals on Pinon Canyon during a Republican
Study Committee meeting earlier this year. At one point, Musgrave pulled Lamborn
aside and said, “You and I are just going to disagree on this. We can fight on
this, and then we can go back to the cloakroom and have a hot dog.”
But Lamborn apparently isn’t ready to share that red hot; he circulated a letter
to other lawmakers last week criticizing supporters of the Musgrave-Salazar amendment
for their “negligent disregard for the personal safety of our troops.”
“Don’t go there,” Musgrave replied, reminding a reporter that her son serves in
the Navy and her son-in-law served in Afghanistan.
Sen. Salazar is trying to find middle ground between these competing interests.
He and Allard in 2007 offered language calling on the Army to complete a comprehensive
survey, and an aide said the senator expects the Pentagon to complete that survey
by the July deadline. But he also backed the moratorium offered by his brother last
year, calling on the Army to suspend the process for a year.
The senator’s nuanced approach presents a stark contrast to his younger brother’s
outspoken opposition. For Rep. Salazar, the Army’s plan hits closer to home: Under
the expansion proposal, the Army would acquire more than 400,000 acres in his
congressional
district.
The Army favors this training site because of its proximity to Fort Carson and because
the terrain resembles that of Iraq. Fort Carson recently absorbed 8,500 additional
troops through the base realignment process, and supporters argue an expansion of
Pinon Canyon would give them the necessary additional training space.
But local ranchers and environmentalists largely oppose this expansion, arguing
that it would encroach on grazing land for cattle, stir the soil in a region of
the country that was once part of the desolate Dust Bowl and threaten fragile
archaeological
finds such as excavated dinosaur tracks and Native American pictographs.
A group of these ranchers and conservationists filed an injunction in federal court
to block the acquisition of this land. Their congressional backers are making the
case that they are fighting for ranchers in this showdown with the Pentagon.
“If you can’t stand up for the little guy, who can you stand up for?” Rep. Salazar
asked.
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

May 20th, 2008

RMN: RTD to Cut Lightrail and Bus Routes

RTD is proposing $4.1 million in reductions to bus and light-rail service in August in response to skyrocketing fuel costs and budget problems.

April 22nd, 2008

Eminent Domain Abuse in Denver

The Insider has featured the Independence Institute’s video interview with Daniel Gallegos on its front page. See it here.

April 21st, 2008

Longmont Mall Case: A Good Case Study on Urban Renewal Process

In today’s Longmont Times-Call, read a good piece by Tony Kindelspire. It lays out the logistics behind urban renewals projects, many of which are currently being debated by city leaders currently pursuing the redevelopment of the Twin Peaks Mall.

April 2nd, 2008

From Dennis Chappell of Pueblo

‘No’ to Pinon Canyon plan—see full letter by clicking here:

After reading about candidate Jeff Crank and his “plan” for Pinon Canyon expansion,
I just had to shake my head. He says he wants to make sure that there’s an economic
benefit for all when the Army gobbles up land in Southeastern Colorado.

This year, like many others, I am a one-issue voter - Pinon Canyon. The issue is
not what economic impact the expansion will have on the region. . . .

The greater issue is the theft and possession of all that land in a place of historic
and natural value far beyond what might be derived by training troops. If the Army
is allowed to possess even more acreage in the region, land will go into the dead
hand of the military, never to be seen again by anyone other than soldiers from
their armored vehicles.

Southeastern Colorado has some of the most beautiful canyons and richest archaeological
and historic treasures to be found in Colorado. Some of that land already is lost
to us and posterity, thanks to the shortsighted people who let the Army in there
in the first place. We have an obligation to our state and descendents to oppose
any more takings.

There are other places the Army can train and garrison troops. This whole despicable
affair is more about Colorado Springs’ commercial bottom line than it is about military
readiness.

Jeff Crank should have the wisdom to understand that and not be touting his lame
notions of “compromises.” When it comes to Pinon Canyon, there are no compromises.
I’ll support anyone who can make good on a promise to fight the military and save
our land.

March 28th, 2008

FasTracks delays release of draft EIS

FasTracks delays release of draft EIS
By Ben Moger-Williams of Metro West newspapers

Changes in the alignment of RTD’s FasTracks North Metro Corridor delayed the release of its draft Environmental Impact Statement, a FasTracks spokeswoman said.

The release of the draft EIS has been pushed back by about six months due to developments in FasTracks’ negotiations with Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads, said Karen Morales. The statement, originally due to be issued this spring, will not be available until the end of this year, she said.

Part of the negotiations that fell through included the controversial relocation of a Union Pacific rail yard. The proposal initially led a group of residents to form the opposition group, “Say No To UPRR.” The group opposed the relocation project due to concerns about noise, pollution, traffic and other problems.

Morales said that the proposed relocation of Union Pacific’s classification yard and intermodal transfer facility to a site between Brighton and Fort Lupton is no longer on the table.

“Initially in our negotiations with Union Pacific, we were looking at kind of a big umbrella package of properties,” Morales said. “Part of that package included the relocation of their current facility just north of downtown Denver out to Fort Lupton. That is no longer part of that package.”

Morales said that the proposal from Union Pacific was “beyond the budget” for FasTracks.

The collapse of the negotiations caused FasTracks to tweak its alignment of the southern part of the North Metro Corridor, a proposed 18-mile railway between Denver Union Station and 162nd Avenue. The corridor would pass through Denver, Commerce City, Thornton, Northglenn and unincorporated Adams County.

“We’re looking at some refinements to these northern portions of the alignments coming out of Denver Union Station,” she said. “It’s some slight refinements, typically just slipping to the right or left a little bit to avoid going through those yards that aren’t being relocated now.”

The changes in the alignment mean that FasTracks must now go back and look at the environmental effects the rail system would have on the new areas.

Morales said the delay in the draft EIS will not affect the construction timeline for the North Metro Corridor, scheduled to be complete in 2017.

Find out more on the Web at www.rtd-fastracks.com.

Contact MetroWest Staff Writer Ben Moger-Williams at 303-659-2522 Ext.202, or e-mail bmoger-williams@metrowestnewspapers.com.

March 17th, 2008

Meet Some Of The Landowners…

Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute interviews Kim Snyder and Galen Foster, owners of Pro Tint Window tinting in Lakewood. Their property is being condemned by RTD for the West Corridor.

July 13th, 2006

Unstolen: Boulder Weekly on Property Rights

by Wayne Laugesen

Thanks to two honest Boulder County commissioners with integrity and guts, we had a hell of a party July 8—the day the county’s decision to return stolen property became law.

About 60 landowners and property rights defenders gathered at a mountain home to eat, drink and toast victory. Several of us lifted a glass to County Commissioners Will Toor and Ben Pearlman. We toasted the Land Use Coalition and all others involved in the process of getting more than $50 million in stolen land returned to its owners.

The unmerge party was like nothing any of us had seen. It was a celebration of people having their core investments returned. It was a celebration of politicians deciding to undo the crimes of their corrupt predecessors. It was a celebration in which extreme liberal Democrats, radical right-wing Republicans and everyone in between found themselves on common ground, opposing governmental theft and valuing property rights. It was a celebration of something almost unprecedented in American politics: the undoing of a law. Not only was it the elimination of a law, it was the elimination of one that benefited government at the expense of individuals. It was the ousting of a law that had given local government more power and control—the kind of law that’s almost never brought down.

If you see Commissioners Toor and Pearlman, thank them for making county government respectable again. If you see Commissioner Tom Mayer—who voted against returning the stolen properties—turn away. If you see County Open Space Director Ron Stewart—the former county commissioner who concocted the thievery—demand that he tell you why he did such a thing. Ask him if it’s his job to acquire property through lawful and ethical channels, or to take it by any means possible. Demand answers.

Stewart devised the county’s land heist in 1993. He was aided by then County Commissioners Sandy Hume and Homer “Bingo” Page—the man facing criminal charges for an alleged bingo scam. Basically, commissioners administratively merged all contiguous properties in the mountains that had one owner. If you went to bed one night owning your home and the lot next door, you woke up the next morning owning only one lot. If it was your plan to sell the lot next door to fund retirement, or to send a child to college, you could forget it. You were in the same fix as Enron employees, who lost their investments to the greedy and callous actions of selfish men.

Commissioners were so secretive about the heist that most victims didn’t even know they had lost their investments until they tried to sell or develop property. Pam McElwain and her husband owned a one-acre lot and the vacant lot next door. After their small business failed and the bank foreclosed on their home, they decided to sell the vacant lot to Andrew Stephens—a man who also neighbored the vacant lot and was anxious to buy it.

In attempting the sale, however, McElwain and her husband learned that the lot had been merged and was no longer a separate unit. Stephens, the once-motivated buyer, suddenly became a grand supporter of the merger heist. He prepared a 30-minute Power Point presentation that argued the small vacant lot was a pristine wildlife turf that needed to be preserved by the county.

“Once Mr. Stephens learned about the merger, he realized he could enjoy the property as open space without having to spend any money,” McElwain said. “It was obvious that the county land use staff coached him on how to defend the mergers. That property was all we had, and it had simply been taken away. Our prospective buyer would get everything he wanted, at no cost, and we would simply be out the money we paid for it.”

Widow Frances MacAnally owned contiguous properties along Flagstaff Road and wasn’t notified of the merger. Commissioners left her with only one property, but didn’t bother to tell her that. She dutifully paid taxes on two properties for most of 10 years. When she learned that the properties had been merged, county officials agreed to refund only two years worth of overpaid taxes. And because of the mergers, the property she planned to sell to fund retirement had the value of a mirage.

Habitat for Humanity—which provides homes to the poor—had promised homes to three families on three properties it owned in Boulder County. After losing a lot to the merger, the families drew straws and one family’s dreams were crushed. Stewart and company were unfazed. Vacant lots, after all, were always more important to the old commissioners than the needs of living, breathing human beings.

How many college educations weren’t funded because Stewart and company stole land? How many retirees sat home, unable to afford the trips they’d dreamed of taking?

Mercifully, the mighty oppressors have fallen. Stewart and former County Commissioner Paul Danish—a latecomer to the land heist who helped perpetuate it—were ejected by state-imposed term limits that county voters elected to keep. Commissioner Mayer will almost certainly be expelled by voters in November, and hopefully replaced by someone as decent and honest as Pearlman or Toor. At the July 8 unmerge party, party lines didn’t matter as everyone agreed: Sometimes the process just plain works.

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com

July 2nd, 2006

Rocky Mountain News: Ft. Carson Growth Double-Edged

See Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News for the latest on how the Ft. Carson expansion will affect those living in Southern Colorado.

May 16th, 2006

ONE YEAR POST-KELO: AMERICA’S RESPONSE

By David Loos

Nearly a year after the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the use of eminent domain by
cities and states to help private developers whose projects serve a public purpose,
supporters of efforts to curb such powers are waiting for the Senate to act on
legislation that would limit federal funds for development projects that take
private property.

In the meantime — as legislative sessions wind down — more than a dozen states
have passed measures to counter last June’s controversial Kelo v. City of New London
decision.

On Capitol Hill, HR 4128 continues to linger in the Senate Judiciary Committee more
than six months after sailing through the House. There is increasing uncertainty
among both supporters and opponents about whether the legislation will make its way
to the Senate floor for a vote amid an increasingly crowded schedule.

The “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005” would prohibit states and
municipalities from using eminent domain to take property for economic development
if they have received any federal economic development funds within that fiscal
year. The bill also would use the federal government’s power of the purse string to
dissuade local governments from using eminent domain power to help private
developers by restricting federal economic development funds for two years after any
violation and creating the right for landowners to use the courts to enforce the
bill’s provisions.

(The article continues below)

*****Action Items

——-1. Call Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) Urge him to move HR 4128.
Communities need to be protected from excessive eminent domain. Senator Frist may
be called at (202) 224-3344. Fax: (202) 228-1264. Senator Frist is a national
figure as Majority Leader and also as a likely candidate for President. So be sure
to call him no matter what state you live in.

——-2. Call the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Listed below. Any
Senator may be called at (202) 224-3121.

Arlen Specter (R-PA) (Chairman)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (Ranking Minority Member)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)

——-3. Please forward this message as widely as possible.

(Article continues)

Proponents of the legislation have stepped up efforts to force the issue. Last week,
53 groups — including the American Farm Bureau Federation and Property Rights
Alliance (Editor-also including American Land Rights Association) — sent a letter
to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) requesting that he advance the
legislation.

“Because of this legislation’s adherence to the property rights provisions of the
Fifth Amendment, we encourage the Senate to pass legislation to once again protect
private property owners across America,” the groups wrote.

Judiciary Committee staff members did not return phone calls about the bill’s
status, but supporters and opponents of the bill have said election year dynamics
could play a role as the session progresses.

“The letter didn’t fall on deaf ears,” said Scott LaGanga of the Property Rights
Alliance. “As we roll up toward the six-month anniversary of the House passage and
the one-year anniversary of Kelo, we will see a significant groundswell.”

“It’s important for the federal government to say to the states that ‘you can do
this, but we won’t subsidize it,’” said Bert Gall, an attorney with the Institute
for Justice. “It’s obviously extremely busy on the floor, but our optimism comes
from the public outrage about this ruling.”

Gall said that the federal law is important to cover states, such as Connecticut,
where state lawmakers have rejected proposals to limit eminent domain.

Jason Jordan, a consultant to the American Planning Association and Kelo supporter,
said there is concern among the bill’s foes that the Senate may attempt to craft a
different version of the measure. “There is a desire by some to turn this from a
property rights bill to a takings bill, and that could complicate things,” Jordan
said.

While LaGanga said the measure may have broad enough support that Frist could take
it to the floor as a unanimous consent measure, Jordan said he hopes the Senate will
not act until July, when the Government Accountability Office is scheduled to
release a report on eminent domain.

States react

Of the more than 40 states where eminent domain legislation has been introduced, at
least 12 laws have so far been enacted, according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures. Most legislatures favored modified and amended eminent domain
bills that leave room for flexibility — to allow takings in certain instances while
seeking to further define “public use,” NCSL says. Here are three examples:

——-XX Georgia lawmakers passed H.B. 1313, which defines public use for which
eminent domain may be exercised and prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic
development purposes, including enhancement of the tax base or tax revenue.

——-XX Indiana legislators cleared a measure that redefines blighted areas to
emphasize properties that are detrimental to public health and safety. H.B. 1010
also requires payment of compensation where the property condemned is the person’s
primary residence at a rate equal to 150 percent of fair market value.

——-XX And the Kentucky Legislature approved H.B. 508 prohibiting the transfer of
property to a private entity for economic development purposes, including
enhancement of the tax base or tax revenue. The legislation also redefines public
use, in part to mean “ownership, possession, occupation or enjoyment of the property
by a governmental entity.”

Some states made use of adverbs such as “solely” and “primarily” to allow
flexibility. Among them was New Mexico, where H.B. 746 would have prohibited “the
use of eminent domain solely to promote private or commercial development and title
to the property is transferred to another private entity.” Gov. Bill Richardson (D)
vetoed the bill.

Other states where lawmakers have successfully enacted some form of eminent domain
legislation this spring include: Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Jordan said many of the more extreme state proposals fell by the wayside, tempered
by alternate bills that offered municipalities a little more leeway.

“We will see it again next year,” he said. “This is not over.”

Please forward this message as widely as possible.