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.