Economics of Expansion - Segment 4 - Economic Lessons from the 1983 Creation of PCMS

Economic Lessons from the 1983 Creation of PCMS

In 1981 the Army estimated the creation of PCMS would bring $1 to $5 million of salary revenue to Southeastern Colorado.  The actual salaries paid at PCMS since 1983 are less than $220,000 annually. The Army estimated $68 million would be spent on construction at PCMS.  A local contractor estimates that less than $1 million of this was spent in Southeastern Colorado. Today the Army estimates $9 million annual input and a one-time $140 million construction project from PCMS expansion.  Will history repeat itself?  In 1983 the Army promised Las Animas County “payment in lieu of property taxes” on the 250,000 acre original taking.  26 years later payment in lieu of taxes has never been fully funded.  In the 1980’s the Army promised to buy materials and supplies from local communities for maneuvers at PCMS.  The Army spent 2.5 million on their most recent training maneuver at PCMS.  This money stayed in the Ft. Carson vicinity, none was spent in Southeastern Colorado.

“Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us.”

State Assemblies held yesterday: Voters listening to Pinon Canyon opposition and other groups

Link to today's story in the Pueblo Chieftain

Link to today's story in the Greeley Tribune

Link to today's story in the Denver Post


From the Greeley Tribune:

Republicans back Buck and Maes; Dems pick Romanoff

Staff and wire reports,

LOVELAND — Voters at Colorado's state assemblies from both parties were in an anti-establishment mood Saturday.

Expansion Economics - Segment 3 Land-based Economics vs Bureaucratic Dependence

Land-based Economics vs. Bureaucratic Dependence

Much of the productivity of the lands surrounding Piñon Canyon is invisible to the casual observer. A 100,000 acre expansion of PCMS would cost (in lost productivity) the communities of Southeastern Colorado $27 million to $76 million annually, according to economic data compiled by former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and Rep. John Salazar.  This includes tourism and hunting revenue, cattle  and hay sales, and agricultural salaries. Wind development on a 100,000 acres would generate an additional $25 to $35 million annually.  Gas fields east of I-25 could also become a reality as energy prices rise.

The Army estimates PCMS expansion will bring $5 million in salary and $4 million in maintenance costs annually to the local economy.  A good trade?  Pro-expansion politicians say expansion is about jobs. They are right in some ways; expansion is about the loss of private sector jobs and businesses in southeast Colorado in order to create tax payer funded jobs near Ft. Carson.
 .

Expansion Economics - Segment 2 Land and Water - The Foundation

Land and Water- The Foundation

The economy of Southeastern Colorado has always been land and water based.  While peaks in the energy cycle have driven times of great prosperity in Walsenburg and Trinidad with coal at the turn of the century and gas more recently, agriculture has always provided the sustainable economic baseline. Both economic drivers require land. 

Looking forward, land will remain central to the local economy as high energy costs drive alternative energy development.  Wind and solar will provide addition jobs and economic stimulus to the region. These alternative energies are compatible with existing agricultural production.   Jobs in Colorado’s clean energy economy grew more than twice as fast as overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to the Pew Charitable Trust.  Witness the wind turbine factory under construction in Pueblo.  People will always eat; agriculture will remain a stable economic platform as food security becomes a priority in an un-stable world. Agriculture also maintains a beautiful and healthy landscape that will draw people and industry as the northern front-range trends toward pavement and congestion.

The Piñon Canyon struggle is about Southeast Colorado land. But this struggle is a symptom of a larger problem.  The money and political power of urban areas threatens to extract more rural resources.  Water, like land, is a cornerstone of agriculture and the explosive growth on the frontrange has an unquenchable thirst.  Western Slope water, Lower Arkansas Valley water, and Lower Platte Valley water will move to the front range in the coming years.  Individually, the power of rural communities is small.  However, in unison these communities have a chance to find solutions to these resource problems that will not destroy the rural agricultural economies.
.
.

Coffman endorses Tipton - does that mean Tipton will be an ally for Coffman on expansion?

Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman, an avid supporter of expanding the Army's Pinon Canyon Maneuver site, has endorsed Republican congressional candidate Scott Tipton.  Tipton, who released the endorsement on his web site on May 4, said that  "I am deeply honored by Congressman Coffman's endorsement."  In accepting the endorsement, Tipton refused to disavow Coffman's position on Pinon Canyon.

Coffman has been clear and open about his support for expansion at the Army's site in Southeast Colorado.

On June 17, 2009, Coffman stated in a press release  "I remain convinced that the Army's plans, which do not include eminent domain, are fully justified and necessary ."  In a story from the Colorado Springs Gazette on April 20, 2010, the headline read 'Congressman [Coffman] proposes condemnation ban to help Pinon Canyon Expand.'  The story notes that his proposal, by allaying land-seizure fears, could also avert an all-out expansion ban that Congress has placed on the project annually as part of the Pentagon budget bill, according to a Coffman spokesman.  That is, his proposal is really an effort to keep expansion alive.

In 2009, Coffman threw a tantrum when Governor Ritter signed a bill making it more difficult to condemn land at Pinon Canyon.  On June 2, 2009, Coffman said that "the Governor clearly has no concept about the training and readiness needs of our combat forces. By signing H.B. 1317, a bill that blocks the Army's ability to expand training areas, the Governor has sent a very clear message that the men and women who serve our nation in uniform are not welcome here.  I think he would be more sympathetic if the U.S. Army were to declare itself a terrorist organization."

With his endorsement of Tipton, has Coffman found himself an ally in his crusade to allow the Army to turn thousands of acres of ranch land, many of which has been in family hands for generations, into more training ground?  If so, then would Tipton's election likely move supporters of the expansion one step closer to victory and opponents one step closer to the loss of their land?

NOTE: Tipton has been on record as voting for bills that are against PCMS expansion and we are awaiting a reply from his office as to whether his position has in fact changed or does he remain against expansion considering Coffman's endorsement.  PCEOC Admin.

Congressman Mike Coffman Endorses Scott Tipton for Congress

.

Expansion Economics - Segment 1 Pinon Canyon History

Piñon Canyon History

The history of Fort Carson expansion goes back nearly 40 years.  In the late 1970’s opposition by citizens in Pueblo and El Paso Counties, who were concerned about negative economic impacts in their region, blocked a proposed expansion of Ft. Carson proper.  Several years later the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) was created 150 miles southeast of Ft. Carson where those who feared negative impacts would be out of sight and out of mind.

The creation of Piñon Canyon was possible only by means of the largest condemnation action in U.S. history. The Army promised economic stimulus, but the community of Southeastern Colorado has received only financial hardship from a 235,000 acre black-hole in an economy driven by land and water resources. Meanwhile, federal dollars have flowed into the Ft. Carson vicinity, creating dependency on the federal government.  History is poised to repeat itself with a proposed expansion of PCMS.  However, this time the Southeastern Colorado Community has rallied in unity and built a political platform to stop expansion.

.

Letter to the editor - Pueblo Chieftain May 9, 2010

Rep. Mike Coffman recently sponsored legislation (HR 5067) to prohibit the Army from expanding Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site through condemnation. Coffman favors expansion and wants his condemnation ban to replace the congressional funding ban that has stopped expansion for several years. He argues that his legislation protects property rights in Southeastern Colorado since it would allow "willing sellers" to offer land to the Army.

Rep. Coffman's view of property rights is incomplete in two ways. First, he assumes  the federal government can participate in private "free markets." His assumption is wrong. The federal government is a buyer with unlimited resources that would impose a drastic change of land use. Their mere presence distorts the market. The threat of expansion already has driven all potential buyers except the Army and speculators out of the market.