Prudentia Sit

---

 

EDIT/ADD:

To get a free screensaver of some of the most beautiful, rugged country you ever saw, visit the PCEOC Site and click the link that says "I Can Help."  Just a free screensaver with beautiful pictures.  No message or anything.

---

 

While I work on my response to the various letters I received and preparing Jimmy's pictures from his e-mail I share with you this statement from The PCEOC about the idea of leasing as an option.  It exposes some of the myths involved in the supposed "win-win" suggestion.  It is not my piece, but I have always understood that I had permission from the group to use materials.  Information provided by Corwin Brown, PCEOC

---

"It doesn't matter whether you take my shoes or you lease my shoes - I still won't have shoes.......".  Stan White, PCEOC

---

Leasing is not a 'win-win' either

There is the suggestion that the Pentagon's use of southeastern Colorado will be good for the agriculture economy and the environment and 'leasing' will make it possible.  'Leasing' may sound better than takeover or condemnation but it is still only an excuse to get a foot in the door to seize land in southeastern Colorado.

Fort Hood, Texas allows grazing 'leases' but the military owns the majority of that land and can terminate at any time.  Here are the Facts about what is happening at Fort Hood and how it corresponds with PCMS:

Myth: Ranchers lease land to the Army for training.

Fact: Very little, if any, land is leased for training at Fort Hood or anywhere else for that matter.

Myth: Livestock grazing on Fort Hood is a great economical benefit to the local ranchers and the economy.

Fact: At Fort Hood, approximately 2,000 cows roam 'free range' (no fences) on approximately 220,000 acres. They are owned by 100 separate families, or approximately 20 cows per family. They are not branded, some have ear tags. Everyone is on his own to try and gather his or her calves which are born the year around. Most said the best way to gather is with a tranquilizer gun. If you visit you will see everything from 900# yearlings to new borns following the same cow. They also get 40" of rainfall every year. Water is everywhere, something Pinon Canyon will never have (13 inches is average).

That would mean that if you used Fort Hood grazing as your example at Pinon Canyon, you could be talking about less than 500 cows for 100 plus ranch families or 5 cows for each family.  A 400,000 acre area that presently handles more than 10,000 cattle and hundreds of family members will be reduced to almost nothing.  Taking away 95% of an entire area's economy and replacing it with 'leasing and more troops' is not a 'win win' nor is it realistic.  There is no way to offset the loss to the communities' and state's economies should this be allowed to happen.

Myth: The Army likes livestock grazing and leases.

Fact: On two separate occasions the Fort Hood's equivalent to Fort Carson's Tom Warren (charged with overseeing environmental rules etc. at PCMS and Fort Carson) stated they would have the cattle removed if they could, because they don't like them.  As recently as the Fall '07 legislative tour of the PCMS area hosted by Representative Wes McKinley (with other Colorado legislators attending), Tom Warren stated that there never would be livestock grazing at Pinon Canyon if he had anything to do with it.

Myth: The Army is a great caretaker of the environment on their bases.

Fact:  Fort Hood is an on going environmental disaster. Again, the environment overseers of Fort Hood made this statement, "Our mission is to train soldiers to fight and win wars wherever they are sent. To accomplish that training, it is anything but friendly to the environment."

Fort Hood spends up to 119 days a year just putting out fires set during live fire practice.  Now, you know why the Army burned off all their live fire ranges this fall at Pinon Canyon.

Myth: The Army would want to do the Conservation Credit and leasing at Pinon Canyon like they do at Fort Hood.

Fact: The Conservation Credit System at Fort Hood is the only thing that has kept the US Fish & Wildlife from shutting them down completely.  In other words they buy those 'credits' or pay people to take care of their property outside of Fort Hood so they can destroy what is on the base.  They say they are paying to protect the surrounding environment.

The Fort Hood Conservation Credit System points out the original 2,000,000 + acre expansion proposal is very real indeed, more a reality than 418,000 acres.  For example, the minimum live fire range for the big guns is 50,000 acres. In our semi arid area they will be required to burn off these ranges at least once a year, or they could occasionally set Las Animas and Otero Counties on fire. (This has happened at Fort Hood.)

With Pinon Canyon's low rainfall, very fine alkali soils exposed by burning and then exposed to heavy tracked vehicle use, they have just created an environmental nightmare. Their only way out is to do a 10+ year rotation as they laid out in their original land use report. You do the math, 5 brigades with a minimum of 250,000 acre requirements for each one and room for a new 50,000 acre live fire range every year. 2,000,000 acres is the reality of what they are looking at as the minimum.

The only reason Pinon Canyon looks as good as it does is it never has been exposed to the extensive training and use of live fire ranges like Fort Hood. Fort Hood gets 40" of rain each year and by the Army's admission, it is an environmental disaster that only stays afloat because of the ability to 'buy' credits from surrounding landowners.

The Army's long range plan is to acquire enough acres, 2,000,000+, so that they never will need to rely on a Conservation Credit System like they have at Ford Hood.  Those who think they are outside the most recent area of interest map should quit thinking anyone is safe - we are all at risk.  The one thing that the Army has been consistent about is their inconsistency with maps and areas of interest.

Myth: They will give the local area some type of economic benefit package.

Fact: The only ones that will be getting any economic benefits will be Colorado Springs. The sacrifice of an entire southeastern Colorado region including ranchers, farmers, clerks, waitresses, hotels, motels, banks, lumber yards and every other businesses' stories will make a nice additional chapter to the book, "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee."

Information provided by Corwin Brown, PCEOC

The last commisioner answers.  The reason she has not been informed completely is that she was recently appointed as a replacement.  I failed to mention to her in my response that I prefer e-mail but am not averse to any sort of correspondnece, but it will be documented here.  I left this conversation in "e-mail form" for my own convenience.  When you receive intelligent answers from people who are genuinely trying to share their thoughts with you I don't think you should be flippant or crass or vulgar but it does take time.  I have 2 e-mails from Jimmy the Good-Guy to share with you guys as well.

---

Dear Ms Lathen,

Thank you for responding so readily and being forthright about your answer.  I think you would find one good resource for news as well as opinions on the matter in the form of the newsletter that you can sign up for at the pinoncanyon.com website.  They frequently post news articles from around the state and even country that are pertinent to the situation and sometimes get missed in our local papers.  They reprint bona-fide news articles from reputable sources and occasionally will reprint op-ed pieces of note from local papers as well.

I think you will see there is a complexity to the distrust of the government that makes it not completely unwarranted.  In case you hadn't picked up on it in your visit to my site, I will re-iterate that I am not anti-military or anti-Fort Carson, but I am anti-horse-thief.  The people who are making these decisions and benefiting from them in a number of ways, including financially, are not all military, but civilians, bureaucrats, some elected officials who might fear making an unpopular choice rather than doing the right thing and quasi-governmental agencies that might be similar to The Greater Pikes Peak Area Chamber of Commerce, who stand to gain privately and/or personally.  People and groups who are not necessarily interested in serving the public good as much as their own good.  I think Doug Holdread's piece more than adequately presented that point.  I thought his piece was equally as thoughtful and well-reasoned as Mr. Hisey's, from a standpoint of being intelligently presented.  Some in the media and in government would like to paint the members of the opposition as a bunch of hicks and wild-eyed radicals when in reality these people are flag-waving, college-educated, highly decorated veterans who just don't think that the land they fought for should be taken by the very government they protected.

-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Lathen [mailto:AmyLathen@elpasoco.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 6:42 PM
To: Herb; Dennis Hisey; Jim Bensberg; Sallie Clark; Wayne Williams
Cc: pceoc@hughes.net; news@not1moreacre.net; Lori.Holdread@; bacacomm@bacacounty.net; Carlyn Mitchell
Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

Dear Mr. Thiel,
 
Please allow me to begin by thanking you for taking the time to contact this Board and provide your views on this issue.  Frankly, whether I agree or not with constituents within this county, I always appreciate it when they take the time to become involved and voice their concerns.  It is also my responsibility to listen to those who contact me before making my decisions and am committed to doing just that regardless of our level of agreement.
 
After going through just part of your website, it is obvious that you are very involved and I appreciate that activism.  In our Representative Republic, this input is vital.
 
As you know, I am very new to the El Paso County Board of Commissioners.  I want to tell you that I have been preparing for this role for a very long time and have been focused on many issues facing the county and specifically issues we are dealing with in District 2:  Public safety, water, roads, etc.  I will openly admit that I have not actively focused on the Pinon Canyon Expansion, but have been watching from a distance and keeping up through more indirect sources.  I was not at the NACo Conference in Washington DC last week and have not received a briefing of those activities yet at all. 
 
Commissioner Hisey's article, which you posted on your website, is in my opinion, a very well written piece addressing concerns on both sides of this issue.  I am still left however, with some of the questions that I have had for some time on this issue which is why I began the process of seeking briefings on the expansion early last week.  I am setting up briefings from folks on both sides of the issue, with the knowledge and professionalism to answer my questions with pragmatism, objectivity and as unemotional an approach as possible.
 
I'll give you my overall philosophy while reminding you that I have been intensely focused on certain other issues and have not yet publicly weighed in on Pinon Canyon. 
 
Private property rights are absolutely fundamental to American freedoms and when applicable, I run decisions through the filter of private property impact and value.  I am also a passionate supporter of our military, their service and their needs.  You and I would not be having this discussion without their protection of our country's liberties.  I place their needs at the top of my list as well and seek to make decisions which will not harm their vital efforts.
 
What I have yet to understand, or perhaps better said, yet to be convinced, is why this expansion is absolutely necessary, whether other options have been adequately pursued and whether there is any credibility to the concern that Ft. Carson could face closure without this expansion.  This does not mean that I am opposed to the expansion, but that I have not yet satisfied my own concerns.  I am seeking answers which I do not have from sources I can trust on both sides.
 
I also have concern over the discussions in which statements are made indicating that eminent domain will not be used.  Good!  However, if there are unwilling land owners in the expansion area, how could the expansion be achieved without eminent domain?  Have leasing options quelled the concerns of the land owners and how will these be implemented?
 
Again, I readily admit my distant involvement in this issue.  It has potentially huge impacts to El Paso County, but those have not been at the top of the list of the constituents in my district which is why I am seeking deeper input at this time.  Bottom line:  I do not have enough facts and I am not convinced that this is the only option for training our fine men and women for battle.  I must have more information and I am actively seeking that information.  I have more questions than answers.
 
I prefer phone or personal conversations over email correspondence in issues as complex as this.  It is just so much easier to explore the issue and share concerns.  Therefore, I invite you to call me or set up a time for a visit if you might be willing.
 
Thank you.
 
Amy Lathen
El Paso County Commissioner District 2

 

---

With the simple correspondence and online sources you can find yourself the best home mortgage that is more likely to prove a long term investment. Also, a bad credit should not stop you from resorting to a debt relief. Many of the online sources of locally available free insurance quotes can go a long way to pull you out of a financial crisis by winning you buy to let mortgages.

---

I received this e-mail from Commissioner Clark, who is a very likeable person whether you agree with her or not.  I don't on this issue.  My response follows her e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sallie Clark [mailto:sallieclark@elpasoco.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 5:58 PM
To: Herb; Dennis Hisey
Cc: Amy Lathen; Wayne Williams;

Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

Dear Mr. Thiel,

There are passionate sides from many points of view. 

It's important for the full study to be completed in determining a final outcome.  It is my feeling that locally, we must be cautious about the message we send to our congressional delegation and the military as it relates to the importance of Ft. Carson.  As the #2 employer in the state of Colorado and an economic benefit from both a local and state perspective, we do not want to downplay Ft. Carson's importance in the face of talks about nationwide base closures. 

The upcoming study will provide answers to questions being asked today, and allow the process to move forward.

 

Sallie

Sallie Clark, Commissioner

El Paso County Board of Commissioners

To which I say:

Dear Mrs. Clark,

First I just have to be unprofessional for a moment and say that I have been a big fan of your career over the years and like your style whether I always agree with your positions or not.

I do not believe I am downplaying the importance of Fort Carson, but if we are so afraid of our elected officials, especially if we fear that they will bully, browbeat, misrepresent or politicize what we say and we fear to stand up for what is right then perhaps those officials are not representing us, but their own interests and gains.  The BRAC website at http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/ does not indicate that Fort Carson is in danger of closing, but quite the opposite, http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/Appendix_C_FinalUpdated.pdf so I don't think that is a concern.  When I was in the Army, units from Fort Carson did extensive desert training at the National Training Center which is already computerized and set up for state-of-the-art technology and training.  And while there may be a positive economic impact in some ways, there is also a greatly increased burdened on infrastructure, water resources, etc. as the population, not only of Fort Carson, but El Paso County overall.  Plus, not all of the personnel coming here will be colonels and generals, but will include underpaid privates who can at times create a strain on the local economy and offset the positive impact, creating a wash.

I think that for me the biggest issue is eminent domain.  Let's use the example of a small, established, thriving private business.  Perhaps a pleasant B&B on the West side of town.  The owners have possibly worked more than 20 years to get it to where it is today.  Then the government comes and says, "Sorry, but we have to blow up your establishment today.  No, you have to leave.  If we decide later that this would be a good place to run a business like yours, or that the government has need of such a place, we might let you rent the property on our terms and you can use it, but we might decide to blow it up again."  A more accurate example would be, "We would like to rent this property from you so we can destroy it.  Oh, yes, the building, the landscaping, everything.  We are going to rent it from you and destroy it.  Well, no ma'am, you don't have anything to say about it.  We are the government, here's your check, good day."  Ka-boom.  Now suppose this business has been in that family in that spot since that owner's great-great-grandmother's time.  Let's suppose that I am the neighbor of that business.  I already believe that the government isn't going to destroy my property and I am safe from harm.  Is it right to stand by and let the government run roughshod over my neighbors and their business?  My neighbor is standing in the doorway of her business weeping and officials are hauling her away and I stand by and do nothing.  I don't say anything to the officials.  I don't try to help her, I just go buy some earplugs.

You may say that my scenario is not realistic, but it is what happened when Communism came to Russia and the National Socialist Worker's Party, commonly called the Nazis, came to power in Germany.  We already have many Socialists in powerful positions who have hijacked the Democratic Party and the upcoming presidential election could produce rampant communism/socialism such as has not been seen in our history.  These are not people who are friendly in any way to the military and, if allowed, will steal as much property as they can, decimating and thus owning the economies and infrastructures of the entire S.E. corner of the state, then cut the military and have more and more of what they want.

As to the upcoming study, it is being done by the same government that wants to take over the land and I am cynical enough about government to believe I can predict what it will say.  Going back to my B & B scenario, what if the government official says to the owners, "We are studying the usefulness of your property for our purposes and may decide to take it for our own" And while he is talking his assistants are measuring and poking and prodding, "and you may protest all you want, but we are the government and if we say we need it, then we need it and will take it."  Me being the neighbor, perhaps I have tried to get buy this property at a lucrative price, but I hear this little conversation and instead of trying to buy you out and expand, I decide it's time to move somewhere else and let you fight it out on your own.

I think that the El Paso County government ought to be demanding that the use of eminent domain be absolutely forbidden in this situation and that all citizens everywhere ought to strive against the heinous abuses of the doctrine that are so prevalent all over the country.

Herb thiel

Gentle Readers, Fans, Friends, Fiends and Foes,

Doug Holdread is with the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition and he sent this message with many more well-considered statements.  Actually, the snooty, snotty response I received was probably worth it to be able to post valuable information and opinions for you.  I have some more pics from Good Guy Jimmy for you also some time this week as well before I post another piece on my thoughts and feelings on the subject of the abuse of eminent domain as well as more of what I think about these expansion plans.  I left these in "e-mail order" for simplicity's sake.   My only further comment for the moment is, "Wow.  This guy's good."

 

---

 From: Herb [mailto:herbthiel@herbthiel.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 4:33 PM
To: 'Holdread, Doug'; 'dennishisey@elpasoco.com'
Cc: 'jimbensberg@elpasoco.com'
Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

Doug,

Thank you also for your thoughtful and well-reasoned response.  There are many strong, valid points in your statement as well.  I will be posting it and then in the next couple of days I have some photos from a close friend of mine who is in the Colorado National Guard Special Forces unit currently in Iraq.  I hope to have them up before the end of the week, if you are interested in seeing some of the good guys building a rapport with the folks there.  Then I will write more of my responses to what both you and Dennis have said.

Herb

---

From: Holdread, Doug [mailto oug.Holdread@]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 6:58 AM
To: Herb; dennishisey@elpasoco.com
Cc: jimbensberg@elpasoco.com
Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

Thanks Herb and Dennis for your efforts toward civility and reasoned arguement.  It's easy to  get carried away by our passionate feeling on hot-button issues like "supporting our troops" or "defending our homes" and our "property rights."

Here is something else to think about:

Eminent Domain is supposed to be used for the "public good." Before we can determine when it is appropriate for the government, in this case the Department of Defense, to use eminent domain, we have to define "public" and "good."

The problem is that there is not just one "public", and there are a number of competing "goods" that are important to these different publics.

• One "public" is the ranchers whose land could be taken. For them, the lose of their land and their way of life would not be "a good." This public has expressed itself through the grassroots opposition efforts of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition.
• Another "public" is the SE Colorado region which would be adversely affected. For those of us in towns like Trinidad, the lose of our agricultural base, population, archaeological sites, history, heritage and the degradation of fragile prairies and canyon lands would not be "a good." This public has expressed itself through resolutions of opposition passed by 14 SE Colorado Counties and numerous other groups in the region.
• Yet another "public" is the people of Colorado Springs and Fountain. There are differing opinions among this public about whether or not the growth of Fort Carson and the growing dependence of these cities upon the military-industrial complex is "a good." These differing opinions are evident in the diversity of thought in your blog discussion.
• There is also the "public" which is the People of the State of Colorado. Their elected representatives expressed the position that an expansion of Pinon Canyon is not a public "good" when they voted for HB1069, which withdrew Colorado's permission for the Pentagon to take land to expand Pinon Canyon.
• And finally, there is the "public" which is the People of the United States of America. In voting for the Salazar-Musgrave amendment which blocked spending for Pinon Canyon expansion, 91% of the House of Representatives reflect the reality that this public does not see this proposed expansion as a "good."
  
  It should be noted that the U.S. Army is NOT among the various "publics" that I have listed. The military serves the public, not the other way around. It does not mater if the Department of Defense thinks that acquiring more land would be a good.
  
  I would also not consider certain economic interests within the Pikes Peaks region to be a "public" as the term is understood in relationship to eminent domain. I would consider these "private" interests who, while they have a right to try to influence public policy, are not themselves, "the public." The "good" of these economic interests should not be confused with "the public good."
  
  Before we can decide about Eminent Domain, we have to decide which public and which goods will take precidence. Since the Department of Denfense serves the public, the burden of proof is there's to demonstrate that an expansion of Pinon Canyon would be a public good. And then it is up to the pulic, that's us, to decide if we agree with them or not.

There are other issues, beyond just the question of eminent domain that influence my position in opposition to the expansion of Pinon Canyon, but the first hurdle is the determination of whether an expansion would be a public good.  Clearly, many of us at the local and State level think not.  The unresolved question is whether of not it is in the interest of the public, at a national level. This gets us into questions of international relations and the preemptive use of our military power and our energy dependence. 

Thanks for you efforts in keeping this discussion going Herb.

Besides the smart-aleck answers I received from Mr. Bensberg, which you can read in the post below, entitled "The Attitude of Elected Officials."  I was pleased to have a vastly more intelligent conversation with a different commissioner, who, I was proud to note, is from my district.  Now please don't misunderstand, this posting is not a change in my position, but a recognition and respect for having received the same.  Following my brief conversation with Mr. Hisey is a copy of a column he printed in the Fountain Valley News last year and which he has given me permission to post here.  Obviously his position is not able to be completely stated due to the piece being less than 700 words long.  He and I don't agree on many of these points, but I appreciated his courteous and gentlemanly response.  Our conversation in its entirety went as follows:

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Hisey [mailto:dennishisey@elpasoco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:14 PM
To: Herb
Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

Mr. Thiel

I am attaching an article I wrote in this issue last July. It was published in the Ftn. Valley News. My position has not changed. It does appear that we would differ on some fundamental issues regarding the value of Fort Carson and our military so we may never come to view Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon the same way.

Dennis Hisey

----- Original Message -----

From: Herb <herbthiel@herbthiel.com>
To: Dennis Hisey
Sent: Fri Mar 07 21:48:04 2008
Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

Dear Mr. Hisey,

I am on my way to bed, but would like to thank you for your well-reasoned, intelligent response.  It is what I would expect from an elected official.

I read your article and think it is very thought-provoking. I absolutely agree that eminent domain should not be a consideration.  I have to go to bed and get up early, but thank you again.  I had stated initially that I planned to post responses I would like to have permission to post your article in its entirety as well but since it has been in a print publication I don't know if there are any copyright problems possible.  I am willing to give it a fair shake, if you would like.

Herbert C Thiel

-----Original Message-----

From: Dennis Hisey [mailto:dennishisey@elpasoco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:52 PM
To: herbthiel@herbthiel.com
Subject: Re: Pinon Canon Expansion

Mr. Thiel

Feel free to post it. The Ftn. Valley News allows me a weekly column and there are no copyright issues.

Dennis

--------------------------

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: Herb <herbthiel@herbthiel.com>
To: Dennis Hisey
Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

Thank you, sir.  I will probably post it tomorrow.  I forgot to include everyone in my last response but I am including it with the attachment because I think everyone should know that there are civil-tongued politicians (from MY district) as well, whether we agree or not.

Enjoy your evening, good night.

---

July 25, 2007

Pinon Canyon – By Dennis Hisey in the Fountain Valley News

Discussion of the Army’s Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site and the proposed expansion evokes emotion on both sides of issue. The State Legislature passed a bill last session that, while not likely to survive if challenged in court, definitely sent a message to the Department of Defense that Colorado is not military friendly.
Make no mistake, the ranchers and their neighbors who oppose the expansion are not unpatriotic or even unsympathetic to the Army’s need to train troops to fight in Iraq and future wars. On the other side, the Army strategists who are tasked with providing adequate training capability for our soldiers are not indifferent to the plight of the ranchers. While some of these ranches have out of state owners whose attachment can be measured in dollars, the emotional attachment of a 3rd or 4th generation rancher is understandable.
As you train so shall you fight – a truism that necessitates the need for as realistic training as possible. The better trained a soldier the better chance of that soldier coming home alive. We hear of the millions of acres the military has for training, but the modern army is actually five million acres short of what is needed for adequate training. The existing Pinon Canyon is meeting the current needs of Fort Carson only because there are rarely more than two brigades on post due to the current deployment schedule. When Fort Carson is at full strength and the Iraq war has wound down, the existing land at Pinon Canyon will not provide adequate training in part because they can not train on the same dirt day after day and month after month.
This brings up the environmental discussion. Having hunted on Fort Carson and seen first hand how the Army takes care of its maneuver sites, environmentally Fort Carson doesn’t have to take a back seat to anyone. The army does not have to make a living raising cattle so it may be unfair to contrast it to a working ranch, but a side by side comparison will bear out the fact that Fort Carson has one of the best Environmental Compliance Directors in the county.
It seems the Army got something of a black eye back in the 80s with the original acquisition, and from a public relations point of view is not doing much better this time. However, it is not exactly a level playing field on the public relations front. Department of Defense rules prohibit even talking about acquisitions until certain Pentagon and Congressional landmarks are met, meanwhile speculation runs rampant and opposition mounts. Without a doubt the military and civilians operate on two separate planes.
It appears to me the Army is going to have to be a little more creative with this expansion. It is time to take eminent domain off the table, and put leasing of property and cattle grazing on the table. This is nothing new, at Fort Lewis, Washington when tanks are not in the field cattle are. Something also has to be done to preserve the local economies in southern Colorado, fuel and uniforms are rarely bought at the local general store. It will take some fairly creative people to figure that one out but it can be done.
I recently spend the day with a group of community and business leaders as well as elected officials from Action 22, an organization committed to working together to improve communities ranging from Baca County in the southeast to Chaffee County in the center of the state. While roads and tourism are less controversial, water and energy invoked spirited discussions, but it got down right passionate for the Pinon Canyon discussion. Fortunately when it came time to vote on a resolution opposing the expansion there were a majority who believed not all the evidence was on the table, not all the options had been explored. Decisions have to be made with the best available information. I would hope the Senate will vote to complete the Pinon Canyon study. It will undoubtedly take longer than anyone would like but all the options have to be explored, for the sake of both sides.

---

You can see that I would not agree with Mr. Hisey on several of these points, but at least he has attempted to open a path for intelligent discussion.  Any PCEOC members, please feel free to comment on any portion of this post, including Mr. Hisey's article.

One thing I have often taken pride in is the fact that my readers are above average in intelligence and therefore when they comment, often from deep-seated emotion, they are very civilized.

In response to my letter to the El Paso County Commisioners (See previous post) I received a fascinating response from the estimable chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Jim Bensberg.  Now, please recall, this is the same county board whose mission statement says in part, 

Guiding Principles We are committed to:
* respectful interactions characterized by honesty, integrity, fairness, mutual support and open communication.
* citizen input and participation in County Government 

 I found it interesting that this illustrious body would choose to respond in this manner:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bensberg [mailto:JimBensberg@elpasoco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 7:44 AM
To: Herb; Dennis Hisey; Sallie Clark; Amy Lathen; Wayne Williams
Cc: pceoc@; news@no1moreacre; Lori.Holdread@; bacacomm; Carlyn

Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

"Horse thieves"? Tell that to the willing sellers in Las Animas County...

So, this is how "respectful interactions" are done when they receive "citizen input" apparently.  Interesting, isn't it?  Well, since the honorable Mr. Bensberg decided to be that way, I responded:

-----Original Message-----
Mr. Bensberg,

(Notice this is the courteous way to respond to a business-type e-mail, whether you agree with the party or not. Grandma says, “You get more flies with honey than you do vinegar, sonny.&rdquo

Perhaps you spend most of your time reading The Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce Newsletter and missed this article in the Pueblo Chieftain. There are no willing sellers in Las Animas County. Refer to this article from the Pueblo Chieftain: http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1204790799/1

"Like a grass fire, word spread quickly this week that the Army claims to have a willing seller to provide as much as 100,000 acres for the expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

The only problem is that the largest landowner in the area, Craig Walker of Denver, repeated his refusal Wednesday to sell land to the Army and said he has never spoken to anyone from the Army about his two ranches in the area.

'I want to stop this talk as quickly as possible,' Walker, who owns approximately 100,000 acres in two different parcels, said. 'I'm not interested in selling to the Army. I'm trying to put my land into conservation easements as quickly as possible. I am opposed to the expansion of Pinon Canyon.'" 

 So, I thought I was done and already had enough for a good post but rather than acquiesce or try to take some sort of high road, I received a message from Mr. Bensberg in response to this, but it was not addressed to all the same recipients, just me.  To only me (I'm the citizen here, if you'll recall, and he is the elected official) he had the audacity to try a base political trick of twisted hyperbole from his bully pulpit,

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bensberg [mailto:JimBensberg@elpasoco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:42 PM
To: Herb
Subject: RE: Pinon Canon Expansion

Well, sonny, I don't need any lessons in manners from you or your grandmother. When someone degrades our men and women in uniform as "horse thieves," I think that speaks for itself. You, sir, are the one who should be ashamed of himself.

Well, well, well.  I'm sure he was quite pleased with himself at this witty little rejoinder, except that, if you notice, he has not made one intelligent statement so far about his own actions and he has not read "The Takers" and knows nothing of who he is dealing with but resorts to this petty, bullying, brow-beating tactic.  He said I degraded our men and women in uniform.  I don't know if I should be honored that I am worthy of such a  vituperative personal attack or I should laugh.  Well, as I have told my kids and others when they had to deal with a bully, you stand up to him.  This includes when someone you don't know tries to push you around and call you names.  I reply, but I make sure that everyone that has been in this conversation up to this point is re-included:

Dear Commissar Bensberg,

If you had bothered to get your facts straight before shooting off your mouth you would know that you have just lied about me, sir. You obviously did not read the article "The Takers" and know nothing about the situation in the Southeast corner of the state and nothing about me nor do you care what the people think. How dare you think to besmirch my good name and reputation with your political smear tactics as though I were one of your political cronies? People can see your double-talk for what it is and you know it or you would have responded to everyone again instead of thinking you can browbeat me. I used to be proud to be a Republican.

Besides that, in the history of the military, Sand Creek comes to mind locally, there have been horse thieves and worse. BTW, your bio doesn't mention your military service. I served in the Army, at Fort Carson, and received an honorable discharge, good conduct ribbon and promotable status, so, no, this is not about the military and my readers know it and you know it.

You completely skirted the issue by calling me names and have not provided one name or source for your outrageous claim that there has ever been a willing seller. That, sir, was one of the questions.

There were a lot more people in this conversation and you seemed to have lost their addresses or you didn't have the masculine fortitude to let them see how their elected officials behave themselves toward their constituents, so I have taken it upon myself to add them back in the loop. You can ask anyone in that list and anyone that knows me what my opinion of the military is and what your smart-aleck remark really indicates and that my remark about "horse thieves" was directed at politicians and bureaucrats who stand to gain from this.

Produce the name of a seller in the area that wants to deal with the Army.

Herbert C Thiel

So, I was about to go to bed thinking that I had seen it all, but then, just before I shut down I received an intelligent reply from a different commissioner.

Dear El Paso County Board of Commissioners,

I was very disappointed that you would not have enough nerve to stand up for the People of Colorado against the Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Fort Carson, The Congress or even so small a thing as the National Association of Counties. Not all of us think the expansion of the base is a good idea and there are many of us who feel it is bad.  It is bad for the environment, it is bad for the infrastructure of the county and state, it is bad for anyone who lives near the base and it is especially bad for our fellow Coloradans who built this state and don't want their property stolen by the government.

I think you should read my article called "The Takers" which I have re-posted on the main page my website, HerbThiel.com, along with all of your names and addresses.  Contrary to what Mr. Bensberg may think, this is a national issue, (Not counting that 91% of the House and a majority in the Senate of the USA have already expressed that this is not a good idea.  How is that NOT a national issue?) Involving the fundamental right of Americans to be secure in their homes and properties.  The Army has many other places to steal property and the Government already owns millions of useless acres in Nevada, California and New Mexico, which, incidentally, are better suited to desert training; let them use it.  Standing with the men and women who built this state is going to say to the Pentagon and the rest of the country, "Colorado Springs, with its five military bases, may love the military, but they also love freedom and despise horse-thieves."

I am a voter here and have been for years.  I encourage you to read the stories on the "This Land is Our Land" website at http://www.thislandisourland.org/index.htm and at http://www.pinoncanyon.com/ for yourself.  Read the comments posted on my site from the original article, especially the story from Lori Holdread about how an elderly person was taken advantage of last time.  I am a voter and you, ladies and gentlemen of the El Paso County Board of Commissioners, were elected by me and people like me and while my vote may only be one vote for one commissioner, I do have a number of readers both here and abroad, whether you will hear from them or not I don't know.  Many read my stuff and don't comment, but are affected.  I do know that if you want my vote and support in the future, you better believe that not only am I watching you, but I am telling all my friends and neighbors about what you are doing as well.  I am one of those people who call talk-shows and write letters and anything else I am capable of when it comes to an issue I am passionate about.

This letter to you will be posted on the front page of my site and should any of you choose to respond, either by comment on the website itself or by e-mail, I will share those responses on the site also.  If the comments on the site don't appear right away I have to release them first, but I have never deleted a comment on anything I have posted.  Please reconsider your position and stand with the People of Colorado.

Herbert C Thiel
Colorado Springs, CO
herbthiel@herbthiel.com
http://www.herbthiel.com/

My regular readers have seen this particular article at least twice along with several others on my old blog telling of some letters I wrote against the theft of land from Southern Colorado Ranchers.  I reprint it here because I am hoping that after receiving the e-mail I am crafting to the El Paso County Commissioners, our local leaders will see that not everyone that lives in Colorado Springs and El Paso County agrees with them.  This article in The Colorado Springs Gazette has inspired me again.  Please take the time to re-read this original post and feel free to make fresh, new comments.  I reprinted it because the first time I wrote it I had 10 comments and have reprinted the comments this time, along with the article.  I will post the letter and various responses here on these pages.  The abuse of the erminent domain doctrine is rampant in this country, partly because the people we elect aren't informed by us as to our feelings and because some of them are crooks.  I will let you read them in their own words and you can decide for yourself.  In the meantime, please re-read and, if you are so inclined, I hope you will comment again, also.

Commissioner, District 4
Dennis Hisey, Board Chair
dennishisey@elpasoco.com
Commissioner Hisey can be reached at:

27 East Vermijo Avenue Colorado Springs, CO 80903-2208

Phone: (719) 520-6414

Commissioner, District 5
Jim Bensberg, Vice Chair
jimbensberg@elpasoco.com

Commissioner, District 3
Sallie Clark, Third Member
sallieclark@elpasoco.com

Commissioner, District 2
Amy Lathen
amylathen@elpasoco.com

and

Commissioner, District 1
Wayne Williams
waynewilliams@frii.com

Oh, and ironically enough, these are the people that support a document called "The Code of the West" explaining life in Rural El Paso County.

El Paso County and the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce seem to be the only ones http://www.pinoncanyon.com/supporterspage.html who support the expansion.

---

Some things are right or wrong because of the nature of the issue, not the politics of it and there are some things that affect us all or could affect us all.  One of these problems is the abuse of a doctrine called "Eminent Domain," sometimes called condemnation, expropriation or, most accurately, "taking."

While researching this I discovered that the actual doctrine of Eminent Domain is basically that a government has the right to "take" property it deems necessary for the public good.  It has always been the right of sovereign nations to do this and such a standard practice that the founding fathers did not address it in the Constitution.  Fortunately, George Mason of Virginia opposed the Constitution because it had no "Declaration of Rights," stirring up a debate that gave us the first 10 amendments, commonly called "The Bill of Rights."  And, like so many other of our rights, these founders had the foresight to include a clause in the Fifth Amendment saying "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  We see by this clause that the practice was known and they sought to address it.  This and the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, guaranteeing, "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This entry was begun as a rant about a privilege which governments, even our very own government here in the United States, see as a right.  I suppose it may be, perhaps has to be, but it seems that in a free and Democratic society such as ours, the public, "We The People," ought to have a voice in such matters.  This is often not the case and it is often abused.  Yes, even here, in our country, even in the very state of Colorado.  As I was doing my homework for this entry, I discovered there are 10,000 documented cases of "Eminent Domain Abuse" in this country and one is right here in my own backyard.  One of the biggest land grabs in history is being attempted right here in Colorado. 

 The U.S. Army is currently trying to take half a million acres, 418,577, to be exact, or 654 square miles (or 261,610 Eastern U.S. square blocks for you city dwellers), with the idea of eventually taking a total of 2.5 million acres, or 3906 square miles, an area roughly the size of Delaware, Rhode Island and Washington D.C. combined.  The Pentagon had originally put a moratorium on major land acquisitions like this but surprisingly enough waived it for the Army.  I thought I would go to the Army's website and see what they had to say about it, but the press release only states that the Army is going to purchase this much (418,577 acres) land.  Their site does not mention their further reaching plan or that there are ranchers that do not want to sell.  There are people who have been on the same piece of land for 5 generations.  And what if the land is not for sale?  The Army spokesman said in a news broadcast on KVOR that they have not and will not rule out getting the property by any means, including the condemnation and eminent domain process.  In other words, they will take what they want.  (Notice that sentence ended with a "period?"  Yep.  They will take what they want.  Period.)  Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi got it right with the title of his recent column, "Land Grab Gives Army Bully Image."  Because that is exactly what is going on here.

The Army is not only trying to take private property but is destroying a way of life as well.  I cannot describe in one blog entry about eminent domain what the great-great grandfathers of some of these men went through to build these ranches or the culture of the West.  If you want to understand the spirit of these men, you can read fictional accounts in almost any book by Louis L'Amour.  "Galloway," "The Daybreakers" and "Ride the Dark Trail" come specifically to mind.  While they are fiction, they do capture the character of these people.  Before the wagon trains, before the Santa Fe Trail, before Horace Greeley's admonition, "Go West, young man," there were the ancestors of these men and women in Southeastern Colorado, opening the way for this great nation to expand.  Great way to pay 'em back, I guess, "Oh, sorry, Mr. Pioneer Rancher's Ghost.  You helped make this country what it is today, thanks, but we're going to steal your land back now."

I have always been a big fan and supporter of the Army.  As any one who has ever stopped by this blog knows, besides having stinky feet, I consider myself a Flag-Wavin', Right-Wing, Gun-Totin', Hetero-Christian-Pro-Life-Love-The-Army-Support-The-Mission-Conservative, but what they are about to do here is wrong and abuses a power that should be administered sparingly, when at all. 

 While some of the ranchers are willing to sell, many do not want to and many can't, because potential (private) buyers back out when they find out what the Army is trying to do.  My question is also, "What is the public good?"  Who are "The Public" and how will they benefit?  Shouldn't the people who actually live in the area, the citizens of the towns and counties that are affected, be considered part of "The Public?"  Whose good?  The good of the Army, maybe, but that's about it.

The Army claims they will be bringing in 10,000 soldiers and this will help the Colorado Springs economy, but I would like to know, since the average private only makes $18,000 a year, which is at or below poverty level and certainly not addressed in the minimum wage bill just passed (figure frequent 20 hour workdays here and then divide the 18,000), will this be a real big boost to the economy?  Probably not, except that there will be more pizza delivery drivers and convenience store clerks as most people in the Army need other jobs to support their families.

So, five generations of work, not to mention that the area is full of places of

Wagon tracks from the Santa Fe Trail are still visible here (the grass hasn't grown back over 100 years later) so, ecologically and environmentally, what will happen if tanks start maneuvering here?  Of course the Army will promise to protect these things, but what about the livelihoods of the ranchers and farmers in the area and the small towns and small businesses that depend on them?  What about the previous promises the Army has made?  The Pinon Canyon website, details how well the Army kept them.  Read the Pinon Canyon website; talk to some veterans or most any Indian about how well the government keeps its promises even when you keep your side of the deal.

So, what do you do if the U.S. Army says that they need your property and will get it by any means including stealing it (I was always taught that if you "take" something that doesn't belong to you, that's stealing), even though your family has been there since before the wagon trains?  Since before the area was even a territory of the United States?

The hope that we have lies in the fact that besides being a Democracy, "Of the People, By the People, For the People," our country is a Representative Republic.  The Army, while being an authorized arm of the Government, is not the Government.  Go right now and check out http://www.pinoncanyon.com/ .  Give it a thorough going over.  The site offers a comprehensive look at what is going on here.

There are a number of representatives who are conscientiously working to define more carefully how this power may or may not be used, but they won't know it's important to you unless you tell them.  The great thing about the Internet is that you don't even have to get up from where you are at right now.  You can visit the U.S. Senate, The House of Representatives, the Whitehouse and the Supreme Court in mere seconds.  State, county and local governments also have websites which you probably have used.  You can be an activist and never have to leave the comfort of your computer desk and find out how your specific elected officials feel about this issue.  Ask 'em.  Then ask what they are doing about it.

I apologize that this is a longer entry than I have done in quite a while, but it is important to me and I think it should be important to everyone else, too.  Please consider putting a link to http://www.pinoncanyon.com/ on your websites and e-mail it to everyone you know.  I encourage all my readers to write about this problem or the problem of Eminent Domain Abuse, especially the ones that agree with me.  Hahaha!  That was just a joke, but you know, I seldom if ever "tag" anyone with meme's so instead, please give this some consideration.

Remember, the good Book says, "Thou shalt not steal."

Photos used by permission of http://www.pinoncanyon.com/

Original comments on this post:

	Posted by Mike Harris @ 04/30/2007 10:27 PM PDT
	Hi, my name is Mike Harris, and I'm the (former) reporter from the La Junta Tribune-Democrat who originally broke this story. In answer to the people who have asked why does the Army need the land, they don't. The Army has NEVER come out with one valid reason why they would ever need such a huge land grab. And they remain tightlipped about their real reasons, leaving us to speculate. All the reason's that they have come out with, "it's like afghanistan and Iraq, we are getting 10,000 new troops stationed at Fort Carson and don't have a big enough training area," among others, have been debunked as outright lies. You can find information about these lies by clicking on the "click here for more information graphic" (the same graphic at the top of this blog entry) at the homepage for the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition: http://www.pinoncanyon.com Have a nice day!

 

	Posted by Monique @ 02/27/2007 07:32 PM PST
	Kind of scary to think your home and livelihood are not necessarily yours. I asked my husband about his, since he works for city government. He says the landowners do get compensated based on appraisal value. But it's certainly unfair to those who are forced out against their will. Fortunately, Kent's city has never exercised the right of eminent domain. Hopefully they'll never have to.

 

	Posted by jerry @ 02/27/2007 11:39 AM PST
	I realize that you could discuss the topic for weeks and not hit all of the highlights. What I find scary, is the supreme courts ruling I think last year that said they local governments can use the doctrine of ED to sieze your property and give it to another private party becuase they will generate tax revenue. What the hell?

 

	Posted by Beeba @ 02/27/2007 05:32 AM PST
	Thanks for stopping by!! I don't blame you for wanting to leave this here a while longer. Too bad it can't be posted in the newspaper, along with the REAL truth behind what is really going on. Some things we won't know until it is way too late. America, land of the free. Free to what? Be stolen from, free to not pray in public, free to not dicipline your cildren, free to not question your government, free to not voice opinions of Biblical moral values??? OK!!! Then I guess, we are 'free' after all!!!!

 

	Posted by AbbyNormal @ 02/24/2007 10:24 AM PST
	Of the many things that bother me about the way freedom is being taken away from "We the People", eminent domain is something that really burns my butt! And this pinon canyon thing hits close to home as a Colorado resident and former Trinidadian. Lori Holdread, Lori Holdread, I'm trying to think if I know a Lori Holdread.....

 

	Posted by Gull @ 02/24/2007 07:30 AM PST
	I've only driven through that part of the country. It is beautiful. Stand tall and keep spreading the words of unity!

 

	Posted by Name @ 02/23/2007 08:28 AM PST
	Thank you, Herb, for posting this!! I am a Trinidad resident, and I can tell you that half the 237,000 acres they ALREADY HAVE was stoeln in the 80's using ieminent domain condemnation. At the time, they used an old lady as the "poster child" for "willing sellers", threw a party in her front lawn as they were kicking her out of her home, took pictures for the papers, and called her by the wrong name throughout the proceedings. She was humiliated to the core. The current threat is stirring up buried heartbreak and anger that is palpable, and can be seen on ranchers faces here in Trinidad, in Kim, Hoehne, Swink, Rcoky Ford, and La Junta. Those in the area of interest are paralysed, literally not knowing whether to fix their fences and replenish their herds. Those outside "the area of interest" are just as upset at the prospect of losing neighbors. Hundreds of ranchers, and the agri-business infrastructure will devastate our small communities and school districts down here. We are fighting tooth and nail, and we are organized, but we don't know if there is hope that we might prevail. Salazar needs to oppose this initiative, and stop waffling on it. The army does NOT need this land. It is, in our opinion, a bif=d for primacy for Ft. Carson to become the biggest, baddest traiining site, and beat out Fts Bliss and Irwin. It is shameful that they would sacrifice our communities and our culture down here, because our numbers are smaller, we have less political clout and just because they CAN. We are willing to travel to do presentations and awareness raising seminars, if you know entities that want to help. Check the pinoncanyon.com site for info, and God Bless Colorado! Lori Holdread- Trinidad

 

	Posted by Skunkfeathers57 @ 02/23/2007 04:13 AM PST
	So what is it (the column never spells it out) that the Army seems to think it needs to 'take' over 400,000 acres of Colorado land for? Is the Army saying that for every extra troop brought in, 400 acres of land is needed to support him/her? Me thinks not.

 

	Posted by Oswuari @ 02/23/2007 01:17 AM PST
	"Flag-Wavin', Right-Wing, Gun-Totin', Hetero-Christian-Pro-Life-Love-The-Army-Support-The-Mission-Conservative" Wow. That's a big title. I hope it's okay if I don't fall neatly into all of those categories. In any case, I support you whole-heartedly about this. It horrifies me that a person's right to have his own home, his own land, etc., is being infringed upon. HELLO, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AMERICAN DREAM?! I can't imagine what I would do if someone told me everything I had worked for was being confiscated "because we said so." The sad thing is, we give corporations, governments, and other large, organized groups these powers... Under false pretenses! Yeah, somebody needs to maintain order, but when we start to examine the methods... Well, excuse the cynical twenty-something. I suppose I'll grow out of it in time. Take care, I'm rooting for you!

 

	Posted by Beeba @ 02/22/2007 05:02 AM PST
	Your entry brought tears to my eyes. For one thing, why does the Army need so much land? Maybe you said it, but, I am still asleep and don't remember... I am totally against this kind of thing, unless it is deemed necessary, and that much land to me, is not necessary for any one project. Sadly, we don't live in a 'free' country anymore. Our rights are taken away everyday, but, it seems the immoral 'values' are rampant to the point where a decent, moral citizen is deemed 'wrong' or 'uncompliant'. This country was never meant to be as it is today. The only thing we can count on, unfortunately, is that it will only get worse. The Bible says that. So, I will keep you and your state in prayer, and I will come back and read all about this so I can see what is in the making. I don't usually do 'tags', but this one I sent you seemed like it could be fun, and we all need to smile, don't we?? Love you, Herb. I pray all works out for you and your neighbors.

 

While I wait for news on other fronts I got this in my e-mail. Obviously not all of my readers are from Colorado, but if not, please consider contacting your own senators and reps and tell them the Army should use the property it already has and not steal land from its rightful owners.

Stop the Pinon Canyon Expansion
While I am tweaking the new CMS, please read:
My latest post, called Public Announcement at the previous blog

Some things are right or wrong because of the nature of the issue, not the politics of it and there are some things that affect us all or could affect us all.  One of these problems is the abuse of a doctrine called "Eminent Domain," sometimes called condemnation, expropriation or, most accurately, "taking."

While researching this I discovered that the actual doctrine of Eminent Domain is basically that a government has the right to "take" property it deems necessary for the public good.  It has always been the right of sovereign nations to do this and such a standard practice that the founding fathers did not address it in the Constitution.  Fortunately, George Mason of Virginia opposed the Constitution because it had no "Declaration of Rights," stirring up a debate that gave us the first 10 amendments, commonly called "The Bill of Rights."  And, like so many other of our rights, these founders had the foresight to include a clause in the Fifth Amendment saying "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  We see by this clause that the practice was known and they sought to address it.  This and the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, guaranteeing, "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This entry was begun as a rant about a privilege which governments, even our very own government here in the United States, see as a right.  I suppose it may be, perhaps has to be, but it seems that in a free and Democratic society such as ours, the public, "We The People," ought to have a voice in such matters.  This is often not the case and it is often abused.  Yes, even here, in our country, even in the very state of Colorado.  As I was doing my homework for this entry, I discovered there are 10,000 documented cases of "Eminent Domain Abuse" in this country and one is right here in my own backyard.  One of the biggest land grabs in history is being attempted right here in Colorado. 

 

 The U.S. Army is currently trying to take half a million acres, 418,577, to be exact, or 654 square miles (or 261,610 Eastern U.S. square blocks for you city dwellers), with the idea of eventually taking a total of 2.5 million acres, or 3906 square miles, an area roughly the size of Delaware, Rhode Island and Washington D.C. combined.  The Pentagon had originally put a moratorium on major land acquisitions like this but surprisingly enough waived it for the Army.  I thought I would go to the Army's website and see what they had to say about it, but the press release only states that the Army is going to purchase this much (418,577 acres) land.  Their site does not mention their further reaching plan or that there are ranchers that do not want to sell.  There are people who have been on the same piece of land for 5 generations.  And what if the land is not for sale?  The Army spokesman said in a news broadcast on KVOR that they have not and will not rule out getting the property by any means, including the condemnation and eminent domain process.  In other words, they will take what they want.  (Notice that sentence ended with a "period?"  Yep.  They will take what they want.  Period.)  Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi got it right with the title of his recent column, "Land Grab Gives Army Bully Image."  Because that is exactly what is going on here.

The Army is not only trying to take private property but is destroying a way of life as well.  I cannot describe in one blog entry about eminent domain what the great-great grandfathers of some of these men went through to build these ranches or the culture of the West.  If you want to understand the spirit of these men, you can read fictional accounts in almost any book by Louis L'Amour.  "Galloway," "The Daybreakers" and "Ride the Dark Trail" come specifically to mind.  While they are fiction, they do capture the character of these people.  Before the wagon trains, before the Santa Fe Trail, before Horace Greeley's admonition, "Go West, young man," there were the ancestors of these men and women in Southeastern Colorado, opening the way for this great nation to expand.  Great way to pay 'em back, I guess, "Oh, sorry, Mr. Pioneer Rancher's Ghost.  You helped make this country what it is today, thanks, but we're going to steal your land back now."

I have always been a big fan and supporter of the Army.  As any one who has ever stopped by this blog knows, besides having stinky feet, I consider myself a Flag-Wavin', Right-Wing, Gun-Totin', Hetero-Christian-Pro-Life-Love-The-Army-Support-The-Mission-Conservative, but what they are about to do here is wrong and abuses a power that should be administered sparingly, when at all. 

 While some of the ranchers are willing to sell, many do not want to and many can't, because potential (private) buyers back out when they find out what the Army is trying to do.  My question is also, "What is the public good?"  Who are "The Public" and how will they benefit?  Shouldn't the people who actually live in the area, the citizens of the towns and counties that are affected, be considered part of "The Public?"  Whose good?  The good of the Army, maybe, but that's about it.

The Army claims they will be bringing in 10,000 soldiers and this will help the Colorado Springs economy, but I would like to know, since the average private only makes $18,000 a year, which is at or below poverty level and certainly not addressed in the minimum wage bill just passed (figure frequent 20 hour workdays here and then divide the 18,000), will this be a real big boost to the economy?  Probably not, except that there will be more pizza delivery drivers and convenience store clerks as most people in the Army need other jobs to support their families.

So, five generations of work, not to mention that the area is full of places of

Wagon tracks from the Santa Fe Trail are still visible here (the grass hasn't grown back over 100 years later) so, ecologically and environmentally, what will happen if tanks start maneuvering here?  Of course the Army will promise to protect these things, but what about the livelihoods of the ranchers and farmers in the area and the small towns and small businesses that depend on them?  What about the previous promises the Army has made?  The Pinon Canyon website, details how well the Army kept them.  Read the Pinon Canyon website; talk to some veterans or most any Indian about how well the government keeps its promises even when you keep your side of the deal.

 

So, what do you do if the U.S. Army says that they need your property and will get it by any means including stealing it (I was always taught that if you "take" something that doesn't belong to you, that's stealing), even though your family has been there since before the wagon trains?  Since before the area was even a territory of the United States?

The hope that we have lies in the fact that besides being a Democracy, "Of the People, By the People, For the People," our country is a Representative Republic.  The Army, while being an authorized arm of the Government, is not the Government.  Go right now and check out http://www.pinoncanyon.com/ .  Give it a thorough going over.  The site offers a comprehensive look at what is going on here.

There are a number of representatives who are conscientiously working to define more carefully how this power may or may not be used, but they won't know it's important to you unless you tell them.  The great thing about the Internet is that you don't even have to get up from where you are at right now.  You can visit the U.S. Senate, The House of Representatives, the Whitehouse and the Supreme Court in mere seconds.  State, county and local governments also have websites which you probably have used.  You can be an activist and never have to leave the comfort of your computer desk and find out how your specific elected officials feel about this issue.  Ask 'em.  Then ask what they are doing about it.

I apologize that this is a longer entry than I have done in quite a while, but it is important to me and I think it should be important to everyone else, too.  Please consider putting a link to http://www.pinoncanyon.com/ on your websites and e-mail it to everyone you know.  I encourage all my readers to write about this problem or the problem of Eminent Domain Abuse, especially the ones that agree with me.  Hahaha!  That was just a joke, but you know, I seldom if ever "tag" anyone with meme's so instead, please give this some consideration.

Remember, the good Book says, "Thou shalt not steal."

Photos used by permission of http://www.pinoncanyon.com/