July 16th, 2008

Corry & Melvin in Denver Daily News: RTD Mum on Land Grabs

RTD mum on land grabs
Ripping off property owners

Monday, July 7, 2008

By JESSICA PECK CORRY and KATE MELVIN

Imagine finding your business on a map. Then imagine that the map shows your business being replaced by a parking lot.

For full article, click here:

For Longmont small business owners Butch and Bev Vernon, this is exactly what happened when they looked at a recent proposal outlining plans by the Regional Transportation District to bring a rail station here.

The problem: No one from RTD ever bothered to let the Vernons know that their property was being targeted for light rail parking. According to Bev Vernon, they learned about the plan only after the Longmont Times-Call recently printed a blueprint of RTD’s expansion plans. Before this, they’d heard that RTD wanted it for a mixed use development.

The Vernons are still waiting for a phone call from RTD.

“We were pretty surprised [by the parking lot plans] because the last concept we had seen was for high density and retail for this property,” Bev Vernon told us.

Lakewood battle

The Vernons are not alone. RTD frequently leaves property owners in the dark when developing its expansion strategies. In Lakewood, property owners are now waging a battle over another RTD map.

According to Galen Foster and Kim Snyder, RTD has been less than truthful about its proposal to turn their Lakewood small business into a large mixed-use retail and business complex. RTD defends its threats of eminent domain — or the forcible taking of private property for a public purpose — saying that the development is acceptable under state law because it will also include a parking garage for light rail commuters.

Meanwhile, the couple’s attorney, Bob Hoban, maintains that RTD is breaking the law because its primary objective is to simply turn the land over to another developer who can then turn the property into something that will generate more tax revenue.

Like the Vernons, Foster and Snyder have had little recent contact with RTD officials. Once Foster and Snyder got a lawyer, RTD was done talking.

In an ideal world, we would be able to give RTD the benefit of the doubt, hoping that it would offer just compensation to business owners who must find suitable locations if they seek to re-open their doors. However, RTD’s track record thus far indicates we have reason to suspect otherwise.

Lowballing

As RTD’s latest FasTracks expansion struggles from $2 billion in cost overruns, RTD’s behavior is also troubling property rights advocates because of the extremely aggressive lowball offers the agency is making to property owners being cleared out for rail lines.

In some cases, homeowners are being offered compensation at levels far lower than what they are currently assessed at. So while a property owner is required under law to pay the government a certain amount in property taxes based on the alleged value of the property, RTD can turn around and offer a property owner a price far lower than that espoused value.

Seeking more money

The news gets worse. As the Rocky Mountain News recently reported, RTD may go back to voters to ask for more tax money to fund expansion needs. This development comes after the Denver Regional Council of Governments — traditionally a cheerleader for FasTracks expansion — chided RTD officials for providing egregiously low cost estimates.

As Longmont property owners, including the Vernons, seek to learn more about RTD’s plans, they should do so with knowledge of RTD’s history of bad behavior.

“We’re concerned that we will think [our business] is worth more than they do,” Bev Vernon said said. “We’ve moved this business before, we know how expensive it is, and we know how traumatic it can be.”

We hope the Vernons, as well as other targeted Longmont property owners identified in last week’s Times-Call report, including Dick and Adaline Inskeep, Stan Walker, and Don and Patty Orban, are treated with the respect they deserve. RTD owes it to these families to keep them in the loop about any and all developments concerning light rail expansion.

Anything less is simply bad customer service.

Jessica Peck Corry serves as the director of the Independence Institute’s Property Rights Project (www.PropertyRightsProject.org). Kate Melvin serves as the project’s research assistant. The Independence Institute is a Colorado libertarian think tank.

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

June 5th, 2008

Denver Post Editorial: Supreme Court Wrong in Eminent Domain Decision

In an editorial titled, “Wrong Course on Eminent Domain,” The Denver Post writes:

“The Colorado Supreme Court’s recent decision in a Telluride eminent domain case is a troubling expansion of the condemnation power of home-rule cities.

The court found that home-rule cities can use their eminent domain powers to reach outside their borders and condemn land for open- space purposes.

We think the court went too far. Open-space preservation isn’t among the purposes the state constitution lists as examples of proper eminent domain use. If a city goes beyond its legal borders to take land, it should be restricted to the purposes listed in the constitution.”

Click here for full editorial.

June 3rd, 2008

Colorado Supreme Court gets it wrong on Telluride Case

From PRP Director Jessica Peck Corry:

As reported in this morning’s Denver Post, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that the Town of Telluride can forcibly take land outside its municipal boundaries for the purpose of open space. While the decision may initially appear appealing to those concerned about preserving Colorado’s beautiful natural resources, it could have devastating consequences for property owners across the state.

With this decision, the Court held that a 2004 state statute, known as the “Telluride Amendment,” is unconstitutional. The result: Local governments can take property OUTSIDE their own boundaries through condemnation. This process, called extraterritorial condemnation, is a tool increasingly sought after by municipal planners. See our issue paper, “Tower Tussle: The Colorado Battle Over Extraterritorial Condemnation” by clicking here. The expansion of government power here has dangerous implications for future land use planning.

I also wrote such implications of extraterritorial condemnation in a May 2007 Rocky Mountain News column.

We can only hope that plaintiff and property owner Neil Blue has the ability—and the U.S. Supreme Court has the courage—to condemn the Colorado Supreme Court’s 6-1 support of unjust condemnation.

May 22nd, 2008

PRP in Rocky: Lawmakers Need To Fix Flaw in Condemnation Law

See today’s Rocky Mountain News for a great lead editorial calling on state lawmakers to require that “those enduring a property condemnation at least be compensated at the level they’re being taxed.”

At the Independence Institute’s Property Rights Project, we are working on model legislation that would help educate lawmakers about the need to protect property owners facing eminent domain for a public good, such as a road or other public transportation venue.

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 24th, 2008

Urgent message from Colorado Property Rights Coalition

Dave Minshall writes:

As you may have read, we caught a big break in the Colorado Senate Wednesday afternoon. Senators on the Local Government committee were angry that the house had sent them an RTD-authored “compromise” bill that completely gutted the original intent of the bill….which was to protect private property owners from eminent domain abuse by RTD.

Rather than hear the self-interest bill put together by RTD, developers, builders, etc., the senator put our original house bill back on he table.

The Senate Local Government Committee will hold a hearing on that bill some Thursday afternoon. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Tochtrop, and the Chairman of the committee, Senator Bacon, will let us know later today exactly where and when the hearing will be held.

Please plan to be at the hearing! We need to make a presentation as powerful as we did at the first house hearing. Our job is to show the damage RTD has done to homeowners and the under-the-table plan RTD has to get around the law banning condemnation for commercial development.
Frankly, I don’t know what we will get out of the legislature, if anything, this year. After the hearing yesterday, stunned lobbyists descended on committee members like locusts. RTD and it’s allies will come back hard. The hearing tomorrow will at least give us the opportunity to be heard.
Right now, we must focus on giving the most powerful presentation possible to the Senate committee Thursday. I’ll co-ordinate with the committee and Bob Hoban and get back to you on messages.
We need everybody. Please send out an alert to our allies to be at the hearing.

Please give yourselves credit for our accomplishments. From the get-go, RTD counted on eventually winning because we would lose interest and slowly drift away. Just goes to show what you can do when you hang in there.

Please monitor e-mail. Please clear your schedules to be at the hearing Thursday afternoon. This is a huge opportunity for us. We’ve got to give this everything we’ve got.

Thanks and regards,

Dave Minshall

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 14th, 2008

Parker North Neighborhood Leader Speaks Out in Rocky

In Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News, Becky Clark Cornwell of Parker North, Colo., documents her struggle to fight forced annexation of her neighborhood. “I never imagined that in America, I could be sued for speaking about politics,” she writes.

My ordeal began in early 2006 when my husband, Wes, and I heard about a petition being circulated seeking to annex our unincorporated neighborhood of about 300 homes, Parker North, into the town of Parker.

We researched the issue and decided that the extra layer of government wouldn’t provide better services, while our sales tax would skyrocket. We’d be paying more for less.

We own a print shop, so Wes used some scraps and made a couple of yard signs. One said “No Annexation” and the other said “Annexation Is A Permanent Tax Increase.”

We planted our opinions in our front yard.

Soon people asked for their own signs. All over, neighbors were talking, writing letters and concluding that annexation was a very bad idea.

Up to this point, our story appeared an ideal example of local democracy in action. But we soon learned that the ideal is far from reality. These days, to speak out about politics in America, you need more than an opinion - you need a lawyer.

Out of nowhere, I was walloped with a lawsuit by the two neighbors who had started the pro-annexation petition. Our print shop, my husband and four others were also sued for violating Colorado campaign finance laws.

Those in favor of annexation alleged we were an “issue committee” because we had banded together and spent more than $200 opposing annexation. Therefore, our yard signs and other advocacy were illegal unless we registered with the state.

Even though we doubted that we fit the legal definition of an issue committee - after all, there was no election scheduled, so how could there be an “issue” on the ballot - we decided to be safe and registered with the secretary of state.

I assumed responsibility for the committee paperwork and had to jump through a glut of bureaucratic hoops. They ranged from the ridiculous (opening a bank account that only had $5), to the agonizing (spending umpteen hours compiling reports knowing that I’m on the hook for sanctions and penalties if I do it wrong).

The likelihood of doing it wrong is a huge concern. The secretary of state’s Web site is confusing and difficult to navigate, and even the people I called at their office were often confused. All this paperwork and anguish to report that a dozen or so people donated the staggering sum of $1,421 over seven months.

Those who sued us said they only wanted us to “play by the rules,” so we thought they’d drop the suit once we registered. Wrong.

That’s the moment I realized we weren’t sued to ensure campaign finance laws are properly enforced. Instead, our political opponents used those laws to scare us and shut us up.

The suit only made me more vocal, but we have many neighbors who will probably not voice an opinion after witnessing our ordeal. And, honestly, unless these laws are changed, I’ll think twice about exercising my right of free speech again, too.

That’s why those of us who were unwillingly dragged into this mess joined with the Institute for Justice to challenge Colorado’s senseless, overreaching campaign finance laws. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Denver will hear our case.

We don’t fight only for ourselves. If the First Amendment means anything, certainly it means no one should be hauled into court and put through endless red tape simply for speaking out about something they care about.

Becky Clark Cornwell is a resident of Parker North.