Thursday, May 28, 2009

Kay Bailey Hutchison remarks

Texas Senator Hutchison has made comments regarding the current availability of training sites in other locations that the Army already has. It's what we've been saying all along - they have space currently to conduct the training they need so tell us again, why do they want to sacrifice southeastern Colorado?

Stories include:

Pueblo Chieftain
Colo Springs Indy
5280 Magazine
Fox 21 Pueblo/Colorado Springs
Fort Worth Star Telegram
Houston Chronicle
KVIA El Paso

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

It's about convenience

We now have Rep. Coffman, Rep. Bishop and Senator Hutchison agreeing with what we've been saying all along; that the Army already has available training ranges. It's all about economics and convenience - nothing more.
And which is more patriotic; honoring the rights of American Citizens to be secure in their homes by using available training ranges, or wasting tax-payers money acquiring unnecessary private and state lands for the advantage of defense contractors?

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Mr. Coffman: take from the poor to give to the rich

US Rep Mike Coffman made more statements this past weekend regarding the Pinon Canyon expansion - primarily that enlarging the little used maneuver site will be an 'economic benefit for Aurora and Colorado Springs'. Yet even he admits there are other locations that can be used for training our troops that they already own.

Read the Post story on it along with the almost 30 responses.

Read the Pueblo Chieftain letter to the editor on agriculture, water and land.

It's also important to note that the area he represents has a very high concentration of defense contractors - from Boeing to Northrup Grumman.

Seems his efforts to push the expansion through are against the majority of other Republicans and Democrats in the state. It's not the partisan issue he is trying to spin it into.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Bill Signing used to create more fear

Today's editorial in the Denver Post (read the full article here)

The well written response to that article:

From the perspective of those of us who live in the area of Pinon Canyon, there are three fallacies in this editorial; 1. that the people of southeastern Colorado should "compromise" with the Army, 2. that an Environmental Impact Statement should be done, and 3. that the Army might pull out of Colorado all together.

First of all, we already made a huge compromised with Army. It occurred in the early ???80s when over a quarter of a million acres of land was taken out of the heart of Las Animas County to create the current Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. American citizens were forcibly removed from their land and we lost the tax revenue associated with it. A magnificent landscape rich with archaeological and historical treasures, which had been on track to receive National Natural Landmark designation became instead a live-fire range.

But it was framed as a compromise; as a "win-win." Army brass told us, "You give up the land and in exchange we'll hire people and contract with locals and you'll see economic benefits come to your region." Ranchers were called upon to do their patriotic duty, to give up the homes that their families had lived in for a century for the benefit of the military and the local economy. We were assured that lost taxes would be compensated for. And we were promised that there would be no further compromises required of us; that there would be no further future expansions.

So we've already tried the compromise thing and found it lacking.

Secondly, there is a misunderstanding of the purpose and the effect of an Environment Impact Statement. An EIS is not the beginning of a process but in effect it is the last step which sort of ties a nice bow around a project. By the time an EIS is completed tremendous time and money have been poured into the process and it is rare in deed that a project is scraped once an EIS has been done.

Congress understands this. That's why they placed a ban upon the Army, prohibiting them from moving forward with an EIS and instead requiring them to justify the expansion to Congress in a less formal report. According to the Government Accountability Office, they failed to do that. Congress has done the right thing in blocking the funding for a Pinon Canyon expansion EIS.

Thirdly, the idea that the Army will behave like a petulant child, pick up its marbles and move out of the state, just because they didn't get what they wanted, is ridiculous. How can they argue that they are suffering from a shortfall of training lands and at the same time threaten to abandon what they have called one of the best training facilities in the country? The threat by Army bureaucrats that they might pull up stakes is pure coercion.

The people of southeastern Colorado are doing the right thing in refusing to compromise. Congress has done the right thing in blocking an EIS. Our state legislature and Gov. Ritter are doing the right thing in deciding not to sell state school lands to the military. And we will all be doing the right thing to take a deep breath and relax about the Pentagon's idol threat that they're going to leave the state.

Doug Holdread

Friday, May 22, 2009

Cancellation

Short Editorial speaks volumes - Pueblo Chieftain 5-21-09
read it here

Article in Colo Springs Bus Journal and ResponseC

The following link is to an editorial of sorts in the CSBJ and the associated response from Doug Holdread. Some profound thoughts.

CSBJ Blogger

Doug Holdread response

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Geren admits training available now (outside of PCMS)

Today, on the Army's Front Page section of their homepage an article quotes Mr. Geren as saying "when you look at the training range available to it (Ft Carson), it doesn't meet doctrinal requirements. That means that the brigades at Fort Carson often have to travel elsewhere and that's expensive in order to accomplish that training."

That statement validates what we have said all along - they ARE getting the training now without expanding PCMS. They HAVE been getting the training without expanding PCMS. It also obviously says to us that they can continue to get that training without PCMS expansion.

Mr. Geren says it is too expensive to transport troops to continue to get the training they are getting now however there are significant issues with such a statement.......

1. Transporting troops IS part of the 'train as we fight' doctrine - right? So they want more land to 'train as we fight' but not travel as part of the train as we fight scenario?

2. He only speaks of the Army perception. They are only looking at it from THEIR perspective - 'it will save us [the Army] money' DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OTHER ASPECTS of the issue. It will COST more than money and our livelihoods and our communities deserve more consideration than that.

3. He also doesn't mention the TRUE COST of taking the base economy for an entire region, along with the land purchase costs, etc.. There is NO PAYBACK - it will never pay for itself so in the long run it makes more sense budgetarily to travel to and from training locations.

4. There is a given cost associated with every transport no matter how far they are taken. So to say they will save a lot of money because they aren't going as far is misleading.

The expansion is being pushed merely for convenience, not necessity. So there is continuing pressure to expand a little used maneuver site, destroying regional economies and lives in the process just for the sake of convenience.

Our position? Steadfastly remains no expansion - isn't it far better to continue to provide training for our troops AND leave private businesses, agricultural production, and cities and communities intact?

There shouldn't be any question

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Colorado Springs Reps staffers protestors?

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

The almost empty efforts displayed to protest the Governor's forthcoming signing of HB1317 gets even more interesting. We've been told that at least two of the ten or eleven 'protestors' were Congressional reps staffers. We're trying to find out more about that but if in fact that is true isn't that counter to rules and ethics involving elected US officials?
Hmmmmm.....

The legislators of the area complain they weren't given 'adequate opportunity' (paraphrasing) to comment on legislation HB1317. There was a legislative process including two separate hearings in both the Colo House and the Senate as well as open debate in each one following the hearings. Hmmmmm.....

The Colo Springs Business Journal sent a 'strongly worded' statement to the Governor yesterday - it calls the legislation an “aggressive assault” on the rights of land owners. It said it “sends a chill throughout the fabric of the freedoms we enjoy” and that the group is “challenged and dismayed” that the governor took action without initiating dialogue. Land owners rights are actually protected by HB1317 - keeping the back door to expansion shut that would be cause for eminent domain use after land owners refused to sell.
Hmmmmm.....

Mike Coffman issued a statement on May 18 saying he had met with the U.S. Army at Fort Carson to review their request. So he made his determination it was needed in one short (apparently action packed) session with only one party - but of course that is just what Senator Allard said two years ago - 'we shouldn't be questioning our military'. If not them then who?
Hmmmmm.....

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

'Dozen Protestors' constitutes being 'besieged'?

The article in the Gazette yesterday had a title of 'Ritter's stand against Army's plan besieged'- yet the story makes little mention of any significant public display that would satisfy the term besieged.

Seems there is a concerted effort to throw everything they can think of and see if any of it sticks!

Several statements also deserve consideration as they are evidence of the fear tactics that are being used:

"We're going to lose jobs," said one of the protesters, Boris Dimoff, of Colorado Springs. "This town here is going to close down." [just because Gov Ritter has said he will sign HB1317?]

Colorado Springs City Councilman Darryl Glenn made a connection between the Piñon Canyon bill and the Pentagon's recent decision to place the Air Force's cyberwarfare operation in Texas instead of Colorado Springs, as well as the decision not to muster a new brigade at Fort Carson. [Gates had stopped the brigades before HB1317 was even considered]

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., released a statement denouncing Ritter's stand.

"While this bill would not preclude the Army from expanding PCMS, it does send the wrong message to our troops," Lamborn said.

What it says is there is no need for expansion and the original position of PCEOC and others remains steadfastly 'no expansion'. It has never been anything else. We have always submitted that Colorado Springs should be allowed their economic 'design' as long as it doesn't dictate what the rest of the states' design is.

There is no reason that Fort Carson cannot continue to thrive and prosper, along with the other military installations in that area - it is now readily apparent (to them now too we believe) however that now they really have to rethink their grand plans they had for an ill-conceived, ill-advised, and illegal expansion effort.

We do not pretend to prioritize or otherwise put our economic or community designs and plans above the Springs' plans (or any other area) but we WILL NOT STAND for any other region to overshadow or otherwise try to sacrifice US for their benefit.

We are and will continue to fight off these types of advances regardless of the efforts by Colorado Springs area businesses and elected officials to use their BULLY PULPIT to push their own agenda.

We agree our soldiers' training is important and know that they have been getting the right training and we have no doubt that they will continue to get that training.

There is more than ample space to train in many areas if there is a reasonable effort to secure that.
Fort Carson just doesn't want to look anywhere else.

Well, guess what, the military may be finding it is and has to be accountable and maybe it's time they stepped back to really evaluate what they are really doing to this country and not for it.

Running roughshod over communities is not the way to keep from getting the ruler on the back of the hand either. Utilizing fully every square inch they have before even considering they need more is a way to start.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Suggestions of intimidation are 'side show' efforts to distract

In an attempt to distract everyone from the reality that there is no need to have more land taken for maneuvering for the military, Mr. Lamborn has suggested there is opportunity for deals to be made but landowners have been 'intimidated down there' - yet unable to cite any specific instances to back that up. He can't because it's not true.

The real issue? We must protect every square foot of our property in the US - and not destroy more - their own statements say 'we considered other locations but the cost was too high to transport troops' - so that tells us that ....

1. they do have locations they already have that they can use (almost 30,000,000 acres in the US now)but it's not 'convenient'.

2. they won't be spending any more than they already are for troop movements and even if there were some additional expense because they bring more troops to Colorado it would be far offset by the savings in tax payers dollars NOT to buy more land and take it off of the tax roles and taking the rest of the regional economy with it.

3. keeping agricultural land in production and providing mechanisms for local production of secure food sources for the country is just as important as a strong national defense and utilizing our resources efficiently and appropriately can only help toward those ends.

He says he is looking at the big picture but he has blinders on to anything outside of El Paso County and Colorado Springs and anything past the next election cycle.

We believe our elected officials representing us are looking at the future of the entire country and are considering the long term effects of losing significantly more agriculture production in comparison with an obviously opportunistic desire to take more land for training that can, and is, being secured already.

KRDO - Governor Ritter to pass HB1317

Gov. To Pass Law Against Pinon Canyon Expansion

Posted: May 17, 2009 08:39 AM

Updated: May 17, 2009 05:23 PM

By SCOTT HARRISON

s.harrison@krdo.com

DENVER - There's more good news for ranchers near the Army's Piñon Canyon maneuver site.

Evan Dreyer, press secretary to Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, told NEWSCHANNEL 13 Sunday that the Governor will sign a bill prohibiting the expansion of Pinon Canyon. This comes just days after the Army's decision to shift funds from the plan for a year.

This is the first public commitment Governor Ritter has made on House Bill 1317. According to Dreyer, Ritter has spoken with ranchers who oppose the expansion. The General Assembly passed the bill earlier this month with bipartisan support.

After Ritter signs the bill, the new law will bar the sale or leasing of any state land overseen by the Colorado State Land Board to the Army for expansion of the training site. Last week, the Army shifted $17 million set aside for the project, to Fort Polk, Louisiana for construction there.

However, Army officials say even without the money for the expansion, they will continue to talk with landowners in hopes of acquiring their property. Officials say the need for expanding the training site has not changed. El Paso County Commissioners earlier this month sent a letter to Ritter asking him to veto the bill, and business leaders likewise expressed support for the Pinon Canyon plan.

Estimates are even scaled down from 400,000 acres to 100,000, expanding the site would boost the regional economy by $9 million annually; add $140 million to the Las Animas County area; and create 100 jobs. Dreyer says the region actually loses nothing by the Army shifting funds for the project, since the money was solely for land acquisition.

Ritter has until June 5 to sign the bill, and says he will do so as soon as all of the necessary paperwork is completed and on his desk.

Doug Holdread Editorial rebuttal for Denver Post

Dear Mr. Carroll,

As an active opponent to the Army’s planned expansion in my county, I have some concerns about your assessment of the Pinon Canyon issue as expressed in your Denver Post editorial. I can tell that you are trying to see both sides, but I think you’ve overlooked a couple of important points that I hope you’ll consider in case you have a future opportunity to write on this topic.

You express the opinion that the Army, and its new spokesman and would-be Pinon Canyon negotiator, Representative Mike Coffman, (R-Aurora) aught to be given a chance to broker a deal with ranchers whose land and livelihoods lie in the path of the Army’s plan to expand its live-fire range. You label the uncompromising anti-expansion stance of Representative Betsy Markey as “melodramatic” and suggest that the bi-partisan support by the Colorado legislature for HB1317, which blocks the sale of state school lands to the Army sends a message to the military that, “we don’t want you here” in Colorado. You suggest that being anti-expansion equals being against voluntary transactions between a buyer and sellers.

I think you’re missing a few key points. Your editorial didn’t ask the question: why is a representative from Aurora so anxious to jump into a fray between the Fort Carson and the citizens of southeastern Colorado? After all, we have a U.S. Representative of our own down here. His name is John Salazar and he has represented us well on this issue. It is obvious why Representative Lamborn is engaged with this issue. He represents Colorado Springs and Fort Carson. And it’s easy to understand why Representative Markey is so passionate. Army documents indicate that their plan could lead to the federalization of much of the land area of her district. But why is Representative Coffman so anxious to get involved? Could it have something to do with political aspirations and votes in El Paso County?

But perhaps I’m being unfair. Perhaps Representative Coffman is seeing the big picture. Perhaps he correctly understands the potential federalization of 10% of the land area of Colorado, the decimation of agriculture in the region and the militarization of Colorado’s economy are issues that should be of statewide concern.

You seem to belittle Congresswoman Markey’s strong opposition to expansion. This may be because you don’t understanding of the true gravity of the issue. You acknowledge that, “the present goal of 100,000 acres amounts to a giant swath of land” but you seem to be unaware that Army documents lay out an 18-year, multi-phased plan to eventually acquire 6.9 million acres, the entire southeastern corner of the state, all the way to the Kansas and Oklahoma borders. I urge you to take a look at these Army documents; The Analysis of Alternatives http://www.pinoncanyon.com/documents/7million.pdf and Pinon Vision, http://www.pinoncanyon.com/documents/PinonVision1.pdf, http://www.pinoncanyon.com/documents/PinonVision2.pdf, http://www.pinoncanyon.com/documents/PinonVision3.pdf . It’s no wonder that Representative Markey is concerned when she sees the Army’s prediction of 17,000 displaced refugees in the region that she represents.

Finally, you assert that opposition to expansion somehow limits the rights of landowners who might want to sell their property. Don’t you see that a transaction between two private parties is different from an agency of the federal government coming in with our tax dollars intent on transferring private property into the federal real estate inventory? Currently 35% of Colorado is owned by the federal government. If the Army’s acquisition plan becomes reality, that percentage will increase to 45% of the state. I’d say it’s very appropriate for our state legislators to weigh in and express their unwillingness to turn 10% of our state over to the Department of Defense. The passage of HB1317 was overwhelmingly supported by both Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate because lawmakers understood it as their responsibility to protect our state school lands from federalization.

The current 100,000 acres is just the beginning. The Army documents that I’ve linked above prove that. We are unwilling to compromise because we know that any land acquired by the Army for the expansion of Pinon Canyon will be the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. We don’t want anyone sticking their noses where they don’t belong; not camels, not former Representative McInnis, and not Representative Coffman. If they have concerns or ideas about Pinon Canyon, they should address them to our elected representative, John Salazar.

I know that you are trying to be fair-minded on this issue, so please check out the Army’s documents and I believe that you will gain a better understanding of why we are so adamantly opposed to their plan.

Sincerely,

Doug Holdread

Read Mr. Carroll's editorial at http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12381545

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition: Representatives Salazar and Markey continue valiant efforts

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition: Representatives Salazar and Markey continue valiant efforts

Representatives Salazar and Markey continue valiant efforts

Our US Representatives Salazar and Markey support Colorado legislation authored by Colorado State Representatives Sal Pace, Wes McKinley and Senator Ken Kester.

All are looking out for the interests of their constituents and for agriculture.


Here is the text of the letter to Governor Ritter:

The Honorable Bill Ritter, Jr.
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792

Dear Governor Ritter:

We write today to urge your signature into law of HB09-1317 which would prevent the Colorado State Land Board from selling any of its land around Piñon Canyon to the Army.

We write not only as the elected congressional representatives of the Piñon Canyon region, but also as concerned constituents of Colorado.

No one involved in this ongoing debate wishes to stand in the way of providing our armed forces and our men and women in uniform with the tools and facilities necessary to perform their duties. Nor is the struggle surrounding the Piñon Canyon area about “beating the Army.”

Quite the contrary, we believe that in a democracy, elected representatives must always weigh the needs of the government with the rights of private citizens. We also believe that when an action taken by the government will have substantial negative impact on a particular community, especially a community that has traditionally been overlooked and underrepresented, that we must take special care to prevent overreaching by politicians.

We understand that you recently received a letter from former Representative Scott McInnis urging you to veto HB09-1317. We take particular issue with several assertions that Mr. McInnis stated in his correspondence.

First, Mr. McInnis stated that the legislation would be “used as a tool to preclude any effort to reach a compromise by either party on this issue.” Both of us stand firmly with the landowners of Southeastern Colorado on this issue and have stated that position publically on numerous occasions. We continue to believe that there are other alternatives to the Army’s proposed expansion in the Piñon Canyon region that have not been adequately explored. Signing HB09-1317 will not change the efforts we are going to pursue on behalf of our constituents in Congress or significantly alter the political situation in Congress.

We do believe though that the people of Colorado have spoken through their elected representatives in the State House in opposing expansion in Piñon Canyon by passing HB09-1317 and the bill should be signed for those reasons.

Second, Mr. McInnis made the assertion in a follow up interview with the Pueblo Chieftain on May 7, 2009 that Army expansion into Piñon Canyon would mean significant economic development in Fort Carson and Colorado Springs. While we don’t want to stand in the way of economic development in any part of the state, we object to the idea that economic benefit for one area of the state should come at the expense of significant economic hardship for another area of the state.

Southeastern Colorado might not have the votes that the Fort Carson and Colorado Springs area has but we believe that their interests are just as important.

Finally, we believe that all due consideration should be given to the fact that the Army made a promise to the residents of Piñon Canyon in 1983 to seek no additional land. As elected representatives to Congress, we take that pledge very seriously and believe it is within the scope of our duties to make sure that promise is upheld.

The issue of the Army’s expansion into Piñon Canyon should not be used a political weapon. These are people’s lives and livelihoods at stake. HB09-1317 was debated and passed by the Colorado legislature. It should be signed into law.

We respectfully urge you to do just that as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Congresswoman Betsy Markey

Congressman John Salazar

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

They promised what they can't deliver

Apparently, when they decided they were going to 'grow' Fort Carson back in 01, 02, the Springs obviously promised almost 7 million acres of southeastern Colorado to 'seal the deal'. That is like you or I promising several neighbors land and/or children for our sole benefit - without them knowing it. And when the neighbors balk at being taken or giving up the children you tell them 'but I know what is best for you, you obviously don't'.

That's the way many think it is supposed to work - they can 'harvest' other's property and lives for their own personal and professional gain - even if it is against others' will.

We disagree and believe that kind of thinking is destroying America and we will fight from now on to correct that thinking.

They also seemed to have planned on getting it through before anyone could fight it like they did last time around. They obviously didn't stop to think that 'their' ideas are not shared by the majority of the state or country or they just didn't/don't care.

They promised someone elses property to seal the deal and now that they can't deliver the 'deal' is in jeopardy.

If they continue to push their agenda to take our region from us then we need to be sure we work harder to keep their 'deal' from fruition - and keep them from inflicting their will upon us.

Lamborn contradictions

Contradictions:
Lamborn stated reason to keep Ritter from signing HB1317 was that 'without the state lands, an expanded Piñon Canyon would look a bit like Swiss cheese, making the expansion less attractive to the Army.'

Last week he said the Army said they could work around a few isolated parcels - if there were 'inholders' in property they want to acquire.

Let's see..... They can work around a few isolated parcels if it's private land but can't work around a few isolated parcels of State land?

So that must mean they are sure they can muscle a private landowner when that owner is separated from everyone else (like they did last time) but they apparently don't think they can deal with the legislature on taking State land if this bill goes through.

Please continue to write Governor Ritter and ask for his signature on HB1317 - it's obviously a big roadblock to the expansion and the Springs area representatives have just now figured that out. They are pressuring Mr. Ritter with political rhetoric and outright threats.

Lamborn said of the governor: "If he's OK with 1317 and we lose the new brigade combat team, then we're going to hang that around his neck." [Springs Gazette]

Didn't Gates say the brigade shouldn't/wouldn't be staffed? One of the areas he is going to cut back on.

And McInnis and Coffman act like they see blood in the water for 2010 elections opportunities - they probably ought to double check to make sure it isn't their own.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Gazette letter to the editor

Representative Lamborn has launched an ill-advised campaign to federalize Colorado's lands and to militarize Colorado's economy.

While it is reasonable for a Congressman to promote issues important to his District, for him to personally form a task force designed specifically to sacrifice others’ districts and a significant portion of our state for the agenda of one community is not only arrogant it is dictatorial. It would be tantamount to Colorado legislators putting together a task force designed to promote the complete sacrifice of New Mexico for border security (without so much as a by your leave for the citizens and leadership of NM).

In his op-ed to the Gazette on May 7th Mr. Lamborn claims that the expansion of Pinon Canyon would be the economic salvation of, not only Las Animas County and Colorado Springs, but of the entire State of Colorado. He couldn't be more wrong.

Here in Las Animas County we know from a century of experience that our long-term economic security rests, not with the military acquisition and occupation of our lands, but with agriculture. We know well the boom-bust cycles of coal and gas, and we know the steadfast dependability of ranching. Taking away the base for the entire region’s economy would be catastrophic – not ‘salvation’.

Besides, the Army now has a quarter-century track record of broken promises with the people of our region. They made the same promises back in the early 80s that they are making now about local contracts and employment. All anyone needs to do is review numerous letters and news articles from that period and it is clearly visible they are using the same script now as then. (see ‘documents’ on the PCEOC website – www.pinoncanyon.com ).

They also promised us that there would never be any future expansion of Pinon Canyon beyond the current 238,000 acres, and that there would never be live-fire at the site. All of these promises have been broken.

Why should we believe the Army now? Rep. Lamborn stakes his reputation on the trustworthiness of promises made under oath by Under Secretary of the Army Keith Eastin that the Army will not use eminent domain to take land. But he fails to mention that Secretary Eastin recently announced his retirement. His promises will leave this office along with his personal effects.

Representative Lamborn threatens that if Pinon Canyon is not expanded the Pentagon will retaliate by pulling the plug on future investments in Colorado. If he's right and this heavy-handed approach is really the way that the Department of Defense operates, Colorado would be better off looking to alternative energy and other kinds of economic development.

The 100,000 acre, Phase 1 of the Army's Pinon Canyon acquisition plan, is not a small thing as Representative Lamborn would have us believe. For perspective, the city of Colorado Springs is 118,848 acres. But this pales in relationship to the planned acquisitions mapped out by the Army over an 18-year period. Army documents indicate the eventual militarization of 6.9 million acres of southeastern Colorado, all the way to the Kansas and Oklahoma borders. That's 10% of the state. The Army calculates that this would create more than 17,000 refugees. (again simply reviewing the Army’s own documents on our website will bring that into relief for anyone that really desires the facts)

The "adequate training" of soldiers does not depend upon the expansion of Pinon Canyon as Representative Lamborn claims. It depends upon the wise and efficient use of the almost 30 million acres of land already within the Pentagon's inventory.

When all is said it is apparent the Army leadership’s left hand doesn’t know what their right hand is doing. Perhaps Mr. Landborn should concentrate on getting to the root of those internal issues along with his fellow legislators who have called for a full and complete investigation of the Pinon Canyon expansion matter. Representative Salazar and Representative Markey are working to protect their districts and the state from assault and pillage caused by a completely unnecessary expansion of Pinon Canyon.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Governor waffling on signing HB1317

Governor Ritter seems to be wavering on signing HB1317.

HB1317 passed the Colorado General Assembly with a large margin (75% and 68%) and bi-partisan support to boot.

HB1317 prohibits the sale or lease of state lands for expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver site.

Please contact the Governor today!


Read the story in today's Chieftain:
Ritter ponders signing Pinon Canyon bill


Send an email to the Governor NOW! Urge him to sign HB1317, the Piñon Canyon land transfer bill



Thursday, May 7, 2009

CPR story link

Here is a link to listen to the story on CPR - Colorado Matters - show of May 7, 2009

David Beating Goliath?

***** (rated with a five out of five stars! ;-)

Colorado Public Radio story on Pinon Canyon

Tonight will be another airing of the Pinon Canyon issue on CPR - one airing is at 10 am (now) and the other is slated for 7pm tonight. We will also link to the archive later on today.

Listen live on line by going to http://www.cpr.org/

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Scott McInnis - voted out before he gets out of the gate?

Scott McInnis' statements yesterday about 'not coming out against his former constituents' will last just long enough for those former constituents to eliminate his bid to be the next Governor. The state GOP better start working on another candidate if they want a viable effort mounted.

See Gazette story for more

Geren says Congressional Ban doesn't effect Army

Yesterday's Denver Post had an interview with Army Secretary Pete Geren, as he visited Fort Carson yesterday (hmm - coincidental it's at the same time that HB1317 is on the Governor's desk?).

Part of his statement included:

He also reiterated the Army's determination to pursue an expansion of its Piñon Canyon training ground in southern Colorado and said he does not believe that effort violates a congressional moratorium on acquiring more land.

"The expansion of Piñon Canyon is part of our long-range plans," he said. That plan includes land acquisition "that meets the Army's needs and is acceptable and can be embraced by the landowners" in the area.

"If the Congress were to foreclose that as an option, that would be unfortunate."


Read the Post article
Read the Gazette
Read the Chieftain article this morning
Listen to the entire press conference with Mr. Geren

Monday, May 4, 2009

Army tries to say we're 'imagining things'

At the House Subcommittee hearing (February 24, 2009) the Army made reference to the “rumor mill” in Colorado stating that the ideas that people hold there are scenarios that they have created in their own minds. A quote from Mr. Eastin's testimony, “It was rumored that we were coming out there and before long they had us acquiring, the opposition people and the locals had us acquiring 7 million acres, which would have effectively taken southeast Colorado clear over to the Oklahoma border.”

We refute the suggestion we 'imagine things' and an Army document titled, Analysis of Alternatives, May 6th, 2004 supports our positions. And in their own words .........

In the opening paragraph of this document is the following statement, “The Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) Revision to Section 7 for Fort Carson’s Range and Training Land Program (RTLP) Development Plan, September 2003, identified the multi-phased acquisition of 6.9 million acres of land, currently owned by private land owners and the U.S. Forest Service (Comanche National Grasslands), as an option to the use of this land for large-scale, doctrinally sound Joint and Combined military training for units stationed at or deployed to Fort Carson and PCMS.”

Page 12 of this document includes a map showing 8 phases of Pinon Canyon expansion acquisition extending to the New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas borders. In light of the existence of this document and a half dozen or so other official Army documents which speak of a very large Pinon Canyon expansion, how can the Army still try to assert that such concerns of citizens in southeast Colorado are the product of a rumor mill, or are these concerns based in the reality of the Army’s own documents?

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Our future is our kids

All throughout the efforts to stop the expansion of Pinon Canyon the youth of our communities have been tremendous. The support, involvement, maturity and class that all of them have displayed at hearings, public events and elsewhere make us proud of our rural / southeast Colorado heritage.

PCEOC salutes those young people and their leaders/teachers!
Share |
Powered By Blogger

Our youth is our future

Our youth is our future
Regionwide support

Blog Archive