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