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.



Second, Coffman also disregards county zoning which serves to protect property rights. All the land in question is zoned agricultural. If the Army buys land without condemnation they should be held to agricultural zoning. Agricultural zoning does not  include military live-fire training. I wonder if Coffman would object if his neighbors sold their house for urban warfare training. Is urban warfare training compatible with residential zoning?


Grady Grissom
Fowler

From PCEOC:
Mr. Coffman's own representatives advise the desired result is that the funding ban will be eliminated.
Here is the blurb from the Coffman spokesman:

"But the measure, 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," a Coffman spokesman said.

And here is the link to the article…
http://www.gazette.com/articles/help-97431-congressman-proposes.html
.