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.

From 'The Westerner'

Friday, April 23, 2010

Expansion foes question Coffman offer on Pinon Canyon

Opponents of an Army proposal to expand its Southeastern Colorado training base Wednesday rejected a congressman’s attempt to ban the Army’s use of eminent domain to secure additional land. "Mr. Coffman has been attempting to open a door for expansion all along. It looks to us that this bill is not something we need. We've already got eminent domain off the table," said Lon Robertson, a Kim rancher and president of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition. Robertson said Coffman's bill asks that funding be allowed and if that happens it opens the door to expansion. "The best way to keep eminent domain away is to keep the funding away from the expansion. The funding ban that is in place already takes any threat of condemnation off the table, so this is a redundant bill that Mr. Coffman is offering," Robertson said. The rancher said Coffman’s motives were puzzling. "I guess we are scratching our heads more than anything right now. We are wondering why he is offering something that is already there and why is he trying to open the door to something that is not necessary." more

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.

Headlines confusion..... different Walker - nothing to do with Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site expansion

While there is a 'Walker' that owns a large part of the PCMS desired expansion area the 'Walker' in the news yesterday is a totally unrelated 'Walker' and has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPANSION OF PCMS.

Leave the Black Cloud around long enough....

The following quote was taken from the article linked/described below:

"Today, Prospect Heights finally shows what the state and city governments want everyone to see: decay. The decay, though, isn’t the work of callous markets that left the neighborhood to perish. It’s the work of a developer wielding state power to press property owners to sell their land “voluntarily.” It’s also the result of a half-decade’s worth of government-created uncertainty, which stopped genuine private investment in its tracks.”