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.

May 8th, 2008

A legal analysis of House Bill 1278’s demise

From Attorney Michael R. McCormick
of Montgomery Little Soran & Murray, PC

The Colorado Legislature’s indefinite postponement of HB 1278, which would have prohibited RTD condemnation of private property for mixed public-private development for Fastracks, is an ominous sign for Colorado landowners concerned about private property rights.

The Colorado Legislature did not take any steps this session to prohibit RTD’s condemnation of private property for mixed public-private development, giving RTD a green light for such condemnations. As RTD’s construction costs for Fastracks continue to rise and RTD funding grows ever shorter, we can expect more and more attempts from RTD to enter
partnerships with developers for such condemnations. The private developer will pay RTD for some of the transportation improvement construction costs in return for RTD condemning a portion of the property for the developer’s private commercial use. The Legislature’s failure to act signals an upcoming battle in Colorado Courts over this use of RTD’s eminent domain powers.

May 8th, 2008

Reminder: Saturday Meeting Regarding Pinon Canyon

The Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition writes:

Facing what could be the largest military land grab in U.S. history, the communities
of Southeastern Colorado will come together Saturday, May 10 at Otero Junior College
in La Junta, to discuss the proposed expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

Speakers will include directors of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition
and Not 1 More Acre!, elected officials, and students who have grown up in the area
but fear their future is threatened.

What: A Town Hall Discussion on the proposed military Expansion

Where: Humanities Center, Otero Junior College, La Junta, Colorado

When: Saturday, May 10, 2 pm

The Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition, or PCEOC, is a broad-based coalition
representing communities across Southern Colorado in their opposition to the proposed
military expansion. PCEOC members include business owners, teachers, students, elected
officials, ranchers, environmentalists and many others.

The coalition is united in its opposition to any expansion of PCMS. No funding,
no expansion.

For more information: Lon Robertson, 719-980-5114

orJody Berger 303-748-9657

April 24th, 2008

The latest on Toll Road legislation

From Rob Dougherty
Pueblo County

During second reading of HB-1007 on Wednesday an amendment by Senator Tom Wiens was
adopted which would abolish toll road corridors and eliminate any perpetual powers
to develop a toll road. The amendment says that any existing corridor including the
Super Slab corridor “is void and shall not be deemed to give the filing toll road or
toll highway company any property right or exclusive development right of any kind
whatsoever within the corridor.”

This is the biggest development we have ever had. It would still need to pass a
third reading and vote in the Senate and then the amendments would need the approval
of the House. If it clears those hurdles it goes to the Governor. Representative
Looper who introduced the bill has said she supports the abolition of old and new
corridors but felt that abolishing old corridors couldn’t be done until next year.
Now this could do both this year and it is one day away from passing the Senate.

PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO THE SENATE ASAP. The subject should ask them to vote yes on
HB1007 WITH the Wiens amendment (L019) A link that will format it for you is here:

www.stupidslab.com/mail-yes-on-1007.htm

Or to do your own:
Subject: Vote YES on HB-1007 with the Wiens Amendment (L019)
Dear Senator,
The L019 amendment to HB-1007 corrects the problem created in 2006 of allowing toll
road companies to claim a corridor. Before 2006 any such claims were made without
any justification in the statutes. These corridor claims have caused great harm and
will cause even more if they are not abolished.
Please vote YES on HB-1007 with Senator Wiens L019 amendment which was passed on
Wednesday.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address
With commas:
abel.tapia.senate@state.co.us, bbacon@peakpeak.com, betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us,
bill.cadman.senate@state.co.us, brandon@brandonshaffer.com,
chris.romer.senate@state.co.us, dan.gibbs.senate@state.co.us,
electkenkester@hotmail.com, gail.schwartz.senate@state.co.us, greg@gregbrophy.net,
isgarsenate@frontier.net, jennifer.veiga.senate@state.co.us,
john.morse.senate@state.co.us, joshpenry@gmail.com, ken.kester.senate@state.co.us,
ken@kengordon.com, lotochtrop@aol.com, mike.kopp.senate@state.co.us,
nancyspence@qwest.net, nwden34@yahoo.com, peter.groff.senate@state.co.us,
ron.tupa.senate@state.co.us, scott.renfroe.senate@state.co.us,
senatorkeller2002@yahoo.com, SenBob@msn.com, shawnmitch@aol.com,
steve.johnson.senate@state.co.us, steve.ward.senate@state.co.us,
ted.harvey.senate@state.co.us
With semicolons:
abel.tapia.senate@state.co.us; bbacon@peakpeak.com; betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us;
bill.cadman.senate@state.co.us; brandon@brandonshaffer.com;
chris.romer.senate@state.co.us; dan.gibbs.senate@state.co.us;
electkenkester@hotmail.com; gail.schwartz.senate@state.co.us; greg@gregbrophy.net;
isgarsenate@frontier.net; jennifer.veiga.senate@state.co.us;
john.morse.senate@state.co.us; joshpenry@gmail.com; ken.kester.senate@state.co.us;
ken@kengordon.com; lotochtrop@aol.com; mike.kopp.senate@state.co.us;
nancyspence@qwest.net; nwden34@yahoo.com; peter.groff.senate@state.co.us;
ron.tupa.senate@state.co.us; scott.renfroe.senate@state.co.us;
senatorkeller2002@yahoo.com; SenBob@msn.com; shawnmitch@aol.com;
steve.johnson.senate@state.co.us; steve.ward.senate@state.co.us;
ted.harvey.senate@state.co.us

Rob Dougherty
Pueblo County
www.stupidslab.com

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