New on 12/21 - Missing in Action.When HB-1003 was passed in the Spring of 2006 it gave toll road companies several months to amend their corporate charters and to send out notices to land owners. So in August 2006, with great fanfare, the Super Slab announced that they had a new name, a new website and they had mailed out notices to all land owners. They had a mailing address, a toll free telephone number, and pages at the website where you could submit questions or sign up for news updates. Sixteen months later I have received no news updates and for the last few months people have been telling me that they never receive replies to their messages left by telephone or at the website. The Colorado Springs Independent recently contacted Super Slab spokesman Jason Hopfer for a comment on a story they were doing. Hopfer told them that he wasn't currently doing any work for the toll road. A few weeks ago, I emailed a question to Ray Wells at his accounting/management company and have received no answer. I had emailed him once before and received a quick reply. Next, I noticed that his bio page has been removed from the website of his company. And finally, the toll road website for the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express is gone, it disappeared about four days ago.
What do all of these things mean? I don't believe we can be so lucky that Ray Wells has retired and given up on the Super Slab. I believe the website and press conferences were just a public relations move to counteract the fallout from notifying 5,000 landowners that he had plans for their property. Having served their purpose Wells has lost interest in maintaining them. We will find out soon enough, the legislature convenes in January and I expect his flying monkeys to be there as usual trying to work things to their advantage.
Last year during the legislative session we heard from realtors who said people didn't want to look at property in the toll road corridor. Others said that property values were suffering. It was hard to know exactly how great the problem was at the time but in recent months I've heard from people who have had home loans denied because the title searches are showing the documents recorded by the Front Range Toll Road Company. The titles are clear but the lenders are scared away by the officially recorded toll road plans. The recorded papers aren't the problem, prospective buyers SHOULD be notified that the state has granted a charter to a corporation intending to build a toll road on (or near) the property. The problem is that the state grants these charters without any evaluation of the toll road plan. The incorporation can be done online in 10 minutes, you only need to provide a contact name and address and pay a small fee. Last year I contacted the Secretary of State's office about a toll road company that hadn't included a required map in their filing. They said they don't check for that, the applicant had filled out the form and paid the fee so they're in business.
Central Colorado Toll Road, Inc. has never complied with the requirements of HB-1003. After the bill passed the owner didn't file annual reports and the corporation expired. But now he has renewed it without complying with the renaming, owner notification and document recording requirements of HB-1003. If he were to comply with the requirements it would show on title searches for his corridor along I-25 from Colorado Springs north to Arapahoe County. Most of the property in Castle Rock wouldn't be able to get financing. Kiwi Corporation, PTR partially complied with the new law. They renamed the company and narrowed their corridor to three miles wide but they didn't notify landowners nor record documents with the county clerks. If they were to comply you wouldn't be able to finance property in a three mile wide strip in Arapahoe County from C-470 to the Kiowa Bennett road along East Quincy. There are a couple of others that I won't go into now but the point is that our toll road corridor situation is out of control and the laws need to be changed. Hopefully we will get something meaningful from the legislature this year. On Robert Thomasson's Better Elbert site at www.abe21.net he gives a bit of a preview. When more is known I'll send it along.
If financing for your real estate transaction has been disapproved because of the toll road please let me know. I won't disclose your name or location but we need to find real cases where this has happened. It is hurting both buyers and sellers. I know of a buyer who is being sued by the seller because the financing was refused. I know of a family who got a construction loan to make improvements and now can't refinance the loan into their mortgage. Let me know if it has happened to you.
New on 11/29 - The Numbers. There has still been no word from CDOT that the Front Range Toll Road Company has requested permission to do an environmental study. But there have been some indications that the engineering company Parsons Brinckerhoff may be working on the project. PB is a big company that has done all sorts of transportation projects beginning with the first subway system for New York City 120 years ago. The Super Slab used PB's Company 39 division to develop their Prairie Falcon Parkway Express website.
We're coming up on three years of involvement with the Super Slab and the debate has gone off in various directions at various times. Eminent domain, corridor width, corridor location, lack of notification and many others. We've succeeded in passing legislation to deal with many of the issues concerning toll roads in general. But as far as the Super Slab proposal goes it is time for Ray Wells to face facts, his road wouldn't help the traffic problems on I-25.
The CDOT website has tables of traffic counts at points all along the highways of the state. I've plotted the average daily traffic figures for I-25 for its entire length from mile 0.0 at the New Mexico state line to mile 298.9 at the Wyoming line. That’s the red line on the graph. The dark blue line shows what the result would be if 3,000 vehicles per day took the Super Slab route between Wellington (mile 278) and Stem Beach south of Pueblo (mile 95). The number 3,000 is significant because that is the number of vehicles passing all the way through the Denver metro area daily according to Will Toor, chairman of the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Toor told the Denver Post that only 3,000 of the cars traveling I-25 in Denver (243,300 at mile 213) pass through, the rest are local traffic. So the very best (and extremely unlikely) case for the Super Slab would be if all 3,000 of those vehicles turned off at Pueblo or Wellington and took the Slab instead of I-25. That’s what the dark blue line shows. It’s hard to see because it is barely different from the red line.
The light green dashed line shows the effect of adding one lane in each direction to I-25. Obviously, adding a lane doesn’t reduce the number of vehicles but by giving them room to spread out it reduces the number in each lane. Increasing the number of lanes from 4 to 6 leaves 4/6 or 66% as many cars in each lane as there were before. Increasing from 8 lanes to 10 leaves 8/10 or 80% in each lane. The CDOT website shows the number of lanes at every point of I-25. It varies from 4 in less populated areas to as many as 10 on one stretch in Denver. Those figures were used to compute the green dashed line to show the reduction in congestion that adding a lane would give.
The busiest section of I-25 is 8 lanes wide and carries 243,000 vehicles per day. Adding a lane in each direction reduces the traffic in each existing lane by 20%. It would take 48,000 vehicles out of existing lanes. Compare that to the reduction of 3,000 or 8,400 which are the best possible (but wildly improbable) results from building the Super Slab. The idea of outsourcing the Front Range traffic problems to the eastern plains interested people at first but it is wishful thinking. We need to put the pavement under the traffic and not 30 miles away from it. Projects like T-REX and COSMIX are what is needed, not a bypass to connect Wyoming and New Mexico.
New on 6/29 - 21st Birthday. I've had a number of emails recently asking what is happening on the Superslab front. The answer is "not much." I verified with CDOT yesterday that the Front Range Toll Road Company hasn't submitted a request to do an environmental study. That is the next step they would have to take. CDOT assures me they will post it on their website and email the list of interested people if that ever happens.
No new toll road laws were passed in 2007 which is a good thing as it turned out. The last version of the bill considered would have given amnesty to the Superslab for the havoc they have caused and might cause in the future. The debate on HB1068 did help us clarify the issues though. The first issue was being called "perpetuity" but a better name might be "longevity." Even the Superslab's lawyer agreed that a toll road company shouldn't be allowed to exist in perpetuity without any progress. The question is how long they should be allowed to stay in business if they aren't doing anything.
The second issue was being called "disclaimers" since it came to a head after the Superslab recorded with the county clerks a notice of their intention to build a toll road and a disclaimer of interest . The disclaimer of interest clarified that there is no easement or other claim on corridor properties. That was intended to reassure landowners and potential buyers but any positive effect of the disclaimers was far outweighed by the recording of the intention to build a toll road. Owners trying to sell property have had buyers back out and property values have dropped. There were attempts to undo the parts of HB1003 (passed in 2006) which made these notices mandatory. But as Stu Hicklin of Weld County told me "last year's legislation that forced Wells to file maps and 'disclaimers' on the corridor did exactly what it was intended to do: Make everyone aware that Wells intended to build a toll road through their property. Buyers and sellers need to know this, and yes, it does affect the sale." The solution he says is not in hiding the existence of a toll road company's plans but in shutting them down if their projects aren't going anywhere. I agree. **************************************************************** There was a birthday this week and I forgot to send a card. The Front Range Toll Road Company turned 21 years old on June 26. It's old enough to drink and to go to the casinos. It's one week older than Lindsay Lohan; maybe they can party together when she gets out of rehab. It has also been two and one half years since Ray Wells dusted off this old plan and said he was ready to get to work on building it. But other than renaming the road and putting up a website he hasn't done anything that we haven't forced him to do by passing HB1003. **************************************************************** Colorado Springs developer Lindsay Case has filed ANOTHER toll road corporation. This is his sixth but he has let four of them lapse rather than comply with the requirements of HB1003. The new one, Southlink Inc, PTR would start at mile 123 of I-25 and run east of Security and Widefield to South Powers Blvd. They have not yet filed the notice and disclaimer with El Paso County. His other active project, Springs Toll Road, filed those in February. Much of that road would cross the huge Banning-Lewis Ranch area which is being subdivided. The developer of Banning-Lewis is opposed to the toll road.
On the El Paso County "Not For Sale" map at www.stupidslab.com you'll see about 1000 acres that is shaded pink to the southwest of Calhan. That is land belonging to Lindsay Case. Some of it is in the Superslab corridor and the rest is nearby. In December of 2006 Case incorporated "High Plains Ranch Water Resources". Not telling what that's about. **************************************************************** I'm updating the Not For Sale maps to show land outside of the corridor that belongs to owners who have signed letters for their in-corridor lots. I've used a different color to distinguish those parcels. The maps show that Wells won't find the mythical "willing sellers" by moving his corridor to the east or west. Look particularly at Elbert, El Paso and Weld counties. Guttersen Ranches (32,000 acres), Kiowa Creek Ranch (65,000 acres), T-Cross Ranch (63,000 acres) and many others have signed letters and their property extends for miles outside of the corridor. I'm doing the same thing with State Trust Land. Look at north Pueblo County. There is a 20 mile width of state land. A Land Board official told me that they have told Ray Wells they will oppose a road on state land. And they don't know how he thinks he can get a right-of-way on Stewardship Trust Land. Read the earlier entry on stupidslab.com for details on Stewardship Trust Land, it's protected by the state constitution to preserve its open space and natural value. But Wells figures he can put a 1200 foot wide corridor of trucks, trains, pipes and wires through there. We'll see.
If you have property in the Superslab corridor and haven't signed a "Not For Sale" letter yet please do so. Go to www.stupidslab.com and click the link at the top of the page. If you HAVE signed a letter and have more lots outside of (but near) the corridor send me your name and county so I can mark them.
New on 3/21 - HB-1068 Defeated. I've been holding off on announcing the Senate Transportation hearing for HB-1068 to see if last minute meetings would settle the issue. They have. After meeting with representatives of eastern plains groups, the Front Range Toll Road Company, CDOT and others, the house and senate sponsors of the bill have agreed to postpone it indefinitely. In other words it's dead. This is good news because the Front Range Toll Road Company had managed to get an immunity clause inserted in the bill that opponents weren't able to remove. Although the company would have no liability from good faith attempts to follow the law and to build a toll road, they are apparently quite nervous. The immunity clause in the bill would have shielded them even for gross negligence or willful misconduct. Opponents preferred to live with clouded titles for the time being rather than see them pardoned for actions we may not even know about yet.
The hearing will still be held on Thursday but committee members and sponsors have agreed that the bill will not go forward. So there is no need for us to attend in large numbers to oppose the bill and no need to send more emails to the senators. The issues of companies existing in perpetuity and exceptions being listed on title insurance policies may be referred to this summer's meeting of the Transportation Legislation Review Committee.
For a history of the events of the last few days see http://frontrangetollroad.blogspot.com I've also included Rick Brown's letter to the Transportation Committee below. Please read that for an explanation of the issues.
I was a happy camper when I started writing this but in the meantime I'm seeing what will be in the morning papers. Representative Looper and Senator Williams have spun this to the press as if we're a bunch of simpletons who didn't understand what a good thing this bill was. One newspaper says there was an offer to remove the provision that gave immunity from lawsuits, that isn't true. Another says that the bill would "indemnify" toll roads for lawsuits. That would mean someone else (the state?) would pay the damages for the toll road companies, that isn't true. In the Chieftain article Rep. Looper complains "There were citizens in that meeting that did not live in the corridor. Their (property) titles are not affected." She set up the meeting and invited those people. She doesn't mention that there were also numerous people from inside the corridor at the meeting and they opposed the bill. On Monday she made an issue that no one from Pueblo County was present but I don't know of any being invited to attend, I know I wasn't.
There are a dozen more inaccuracies but I won't go into them. The bottom line is that Rep. Looper excluded property owners from the meeting where the final version of the bill was drafted. She included the Front Range Toll Road Company, CDOT, the county clerks association, and the title insurers association. What they came up with was that they should give themselves protection from lawsuits. And what appeared to be improved timelines were no timelines at all. That was not acceptable, it was even rejected by the groups who initially supported the bill. Whatever, we wanted it killed and it was.
News on the defeat of HB-1068. Pueblo Chieftain. Springs Gazette. Associated Press. Denver Channel 4.
Rick Brown's analysis of HB-1068: MEMORANDUM TO: Senate Transportation Committee FROM: Rick Brown, Board Member
High Plains Coalition for Responsible Transportation Policy
I. INTRODUCTION
I respectfully request that you vote against HB 1068 when it comes before the Senate Transportation Committee on March 22. This bill is contrary to the basic policy goals underlying HB 1003, the toll road legislation enacted last year.
I believe I can address this point with some authority. During the 2005 and 2006 legislative sessions, as a resident of what was then the Front Range Toll Road corridor, I was intimately involved with the evaluation and discussion of the language proposed for, and ultimately included in, HB 1003. I appeared before the Senate Transportation Committee on several occasions to provide relevant testimony.
HB 1003 was meant to modernize 19th century private toll road statutes. The goal was to allow such projects to be constructed when they serve actual transportation needs while, at the same time, protecting the public from abusive proposals through detailed, but achievable, notice, environmental and planning safeguards. Many of us opposed to the Super Slab believe HB 1003 provides checks and balances which give us, and Coloradans who may face similar threats in the future, a fair chance to protect our homes and property from a thinly disguised land grab.
Among the key principles underlying HB 1003 are transparency and accountability. HB 1068 undercuts both of these principles.
II. TRANSPARENCY
The original Super Slab corridor, which encompassed 2500 square miles, was established in articles of incorporation filed with the Secretary of State by the Front Range Toll Road Company in 1986 (under HB 1003, the Super Slab corridor was reduced to about 630 square miles). The law in effect until last year did not require the company to record any information with county clerks, and it did not do so.
Senators who served on the Transportation Committee in 2005 may recall testimony from corridor residents who purchased their land subsequent to 1986. These residents were unaware of the Super Slab project's existence and the accompanying threat that their land might be seized through eminent domain to benefit a private corporation. Some of these residents testified that they would not have purchased their land had they been aware that it lay in the corridor. This ignorance was the result of the lack of a recording requirement, for purchasers of real estate rely on county land records, not corporate filings with the Secretary of State.
HB 1003 requires toll road companies to record notices and maps of corridors and a list of affected parcels. See C.R.S. secs. 7-45-108(1)(a), 38-2-101(2). This requirement addresses the problem of undisclosed corridors, but it also created a risk that the corridor would be viewed as a legal cloud on the titles of landowners within its boundaries. To avoid this risk, the bill's drafters crafted C.R.S. sec. 7-45-108(1)(b), which requires toll road companies to file "a disclaimer of interest" with county clerks in relevant counties "that expressly states that the filed formation document does not effect an interest in real property within the three-mile corridor specified in the filed formation document." Front Range Toll Road Company recorded such documents.
Paradoxically, this disclaimer of any interest in real property has given rise to practical impediments to land sales within the corridor. This situation has arisen because some title companies have referenced the corridor in their reports and knowledge of its existence has caused prospective purchasers and lenders to back out of purchases or financing.
HB 1068 purports to correct this problem in several ways. First, it eliminates the requirement that toll road companies file notices of a corridor's existence, along with a map, with county clerks. It also voids previously filed maps and notices. See HB1068, page 5, lines 24-27; page 6, line 23-page 7, line 6. Finally, it repeals the provision requiring toll road companies to identify parcels lying within their corridors. Id., page 9, line 25-page 10, line 9.
In place of these requirements HB 1068 mandates that property owners be mailed notice of the intent to construct a toll road and that the notice be made available on C-DOT's web site. Id., page 5, line 24-page 6, line 14. It also voids existing disclaimers, such as those recorded by the Super Slab, and forbids title insurance companies from mentioning them in their reports or policies. Id. at 7, lines 3-13.
These portions of HB 1068 address the problems which have arisen as a result of title insurance companies disclosing the disclaimer, but they also throw the baby out with the bath water, for they would make it impossible for prospective purchasers of property within toll road corridors to ascertain independently whether the corridor exists. The mailed notices would go only to existing property owners. Parcels within the corridor would not be reflected in county recorders' offices. The lack of transparency which existed prior to the passage of HB 1003 would be reinstated. In attempting to solve one, very real problem HB 1068 resurrects another.
III. ACCOUNTABILITY
Prior to last year, there were few practical constraints on where and how private toll road companies sited their rights-of-way and constructed their roads. HB 1003 corrects this lack of accountability by requiring that private toll roads to be integrated into regional and statewide transportation plans and further requiring companies to demonstrate that proposed projects are environmentally sound, feasible, and otherwise in the public interest. There are a couple of respects in which HB 1068 would represent a retreat from accountability.
First, the bill grants toll road companies immunity from civil liability for claims "arising out of the filing, recording, voiding, inclusion or exclusion of a disclaimer of interest, map, or written notice lawfully filed or recorded....and subsequently voided pursuant to [HB 1068]." Id., page 7 lines 14-23, page 8, line 19-page 9, line 3. Insofar as we know only the Super Slab would benefit from this grant of immunity, for the bill excuses other, future toll roads from the recording requirement.
Putting aside the issue of whether a grant of such a benefit represents a "special or exclusive" immunity prohibited by section 25 of Article V of the Colorado Constitution, this language will undoubtedly be used by Front Range Toll Road Company and its contractor, Kellogg, Brown and Root, to avoid any claims for damages which may arise from improper conduct.
For example, these companies improperly recorded a corridor claim five miles wide in Adams County, thus burdening private property unnecessarily. The background of this misconduct is more fully described by Pueblo County resident Rob Dougherty in his blog, Stupidslab.com. (As an aside, it should be noted that citizen activists would not have been able to discover this defect if lists of property within the Super Slab corridor had not been recorded with county clerks.)
We anticipate that the Super Slab developers are concerned about liability exposure for these or other, yet to be discovered, acts pertaining to their recording practices and will attempt to use the language in the grant of immunity to escape responsibility for their conduct. For example, they may seek to argue that any filing, even a negligent one, is covered by the grant of immunity because it was undertaken under color of HB 1003 and was, thus, "lawfully filed". If this is not the case the language would not have emerged from the closed door discussions between the bill's House sponsor and the Super Slab's lobbyists more fully described below. In any event, since the company has nothing to fear if it believes it has acted properly there is no need to grant it immunity.
A second element of the retreat from accountability relates to HB 1068's failed attempt to close a loophole in HB 1003, which grants toll road companies rights to corridors in perpetuity regardless of whether they have the ability or inclination to actually proceed with development of a road. HB 1003 provides that a toll road company has to spend a mere $500,000 on preconstruction activities within three years of filing the formation document describing the corridor. See C.R.S. sec. 7-45-103. Once this requirement is met, the company can sit on the corridor indefinitely, wait until property values decrease, cherry pick whatever land it desires, and never move forward with a road. Some will find the opportunities for abuse irresistible.
HB 1068 seeks to address this loophole, but it does so ineffectively. The bill maintains the relatively low $500,000 threshold for planning and preconstruction activities found in HB 1003 and reduces the period for expenditure from three years to eighteen months. After that, however, the toll road company has the "exclusive right to develop or seek approval to develop" the toll road project within its three mile corridor. HB 1068, page 3,line 15-page 4, line 11. The company can wait as long as it wishes to undertake the environmental review and planning process mandated by HB 1003. Only after it completes this process does the bill impose a requirement that construction commence within seven years. Id., page 4, lines 12-27. Thus, as Rob Dougherty has noted, the deadline imposed by HB 1068 is infinity plus seven years.
IV. WHAT LED TO HB 1068'S INADEQUACIES?
The defects described above have arisen because the version of the bill passed by the House was drafted without meaningful input from stakeholders with the most to lose- property owners in or near the Super Slab corridor. For reasons we don't understand these citizens were excluded from discussion of the bill's language by its House sponsor, who met only with lobbyists for the Super Slab, the title insurance industry, C-DOT and county clerks.
The House Transportation Committee was not informed that of the narrow range of opinions considered as the language was finalized. We suspect the House Committee assumed citizen stakeholders were involved, for the bill was rushed to hearing and a floor vote without the public being provided with an opportunity to comment.
V. CONCLUSION
There are legitimate issues connected with HB 1003 which ought to be addressed by the Legislature. Unfortunately, HB 1068 does not do the job.
Two years ago this committee was faced with an analogous situation when it rejected ill-conceived toll road legislation which had overwhelmingly passed through the House on the basis of incomplete information and faulty assumptions. The Senate Transportation Committee referred the matter to the Transportation Legislation Review Committee for study between sessions. The result of that process was a vast improvement over what had been presented previously. We request that the committee follow the same course now.
New on 3/13 - Kill HB-1068. In an earlier update I commented on the section of HB-1068 which shields toll road companies, county clerks and title insurance companies from liability associated with filing or voiding maps and disclaimers of interest. I saw no problem with that and said that they shouldn't have to defend against lawsuits for obeying the law. I received a whole lot of email disagreeing with me and none agreeing. After reading the arguments I can see that I was wrong, there should be no immunity from liability given.
First, these parties just don't have any liability from good faith attempts to comply with the law. You don't need a pardon if you haven't done anything wrong. Immunity wasn't even in Rep. Looper's bill when it was introduced but now we're being told it's not negotiable, it won't be removed. Why would that be?
On August 7, 2006 I received a spreadsheet file of the names of owners of property in the three mile wide Super Slab corridor in Adams County. This was created by the Adams County GIS department for Kellogg, Brown and Root who were doing work for the Front Range Toll Road Company. On August 16, 2006 we received a second file that GIS had created for KBR. This one contained all of the parcels in a corridor five miles wide. There were several hundred more parcels on that list. On August 28, 2005 the Front Range Toll Road Company recorded their maps and disclaimers at the seven county clerk's offices and mailed certified letters to property owners. In Adams County, owners outside of the three mile wide corridor but within a five mile wide corridor were receiving letter telling them that they were in the toll road corridor and might have their property taken by eminent domain.
On September 7, 2006 I explained this discrepancy and another one in the Stupidslab News. I found the other problem when I went to the Pueblo County court house to view the recorded documents. It could be seen from across the room that the corridor on the recorded maps was not the same as the one they mailed to owners. The recorded maps show the corridor continuing 20 miles south of Pueblo to Colorado City. But none of the land owners in that area received the notices that they should have been sent. A few days later the Super Slab spokesman told the Pueblo Chieftain that there were no errors in the mailing. Basically he denied that what was alleged in Adams County had occurred in Pueblo County. It was technically true but evasive. "If there are issues with the maps, we'll address that," he said.
That was six months ago and they never did "address that." Forty percent of the corridor they claimed in Adams County was done illegally. There is evidence that they knew it in advance and even requested the wrong information to replace the correct information. It was definitely brought to their attention in September but they never corrected it. And in January 2007, at the request of the title insurance industry, they recorded lists of property owners which included all of the illegal inclusions in Adams County. So now title searches on 23,000 acres of land in Adams will illegally show that the land has a "Notice to Construct a Toll Road And Disclaimer of Interest" affecting it. Those people could be unable to sell their land when they aren't even in any danger of being displaced by a toll road. And now they would like immunity from lawsuits for having created this situation? I don't think so. This is just one example of a situation where someone would be held blameless under HB-1068 when they should be held responsible instead. Immunity is a bad idea.
When people mentioned suing over damage to property values I guess I couldn't imagine myself doing that. But some of you have pole barns worth more than my whole property and could suffer considerable losses. It wouldn't be right for the legislature to excuse these debts, they should be decided in court.
There are just too many problems with HB-1068 and not that much to recommend it. It is now being pushed by people who don't wish us well. HB-1068 needs to be killed. Read the positions and recommendations from HPCRTP and Save Our Homes Coalition in the March 8 & 11 entries at the TOLLROAD WARRIORS BLOG and send emails to the Senate Transportation Committee and the bill's senate sponsor Sen. Suzanne Williams.
******************************************************************** Thanks for the replies to my arithmetic problem. I've heard from engineers, accountants, teachers and many others who agree that a seven year time limit will never run out if it isn't required to begin. I think they've heard this at the capitol too since there is talk of deleting those portions of the bill. While they're at it they need to delete the whole bill.
New on 3/8 - HB-1068 Goes to the Senate. HB-1068 passed it's final vote in the House today and now goes to the Senate. We found out too late that the bill had been hijacked by industry and government while the landowners and original authors of the bill were excluded. Many of you (and many legislators) didn't get the warnings until after the vote had taken place. Ray Wells got a bill through the House in 2005 but we were able to stop it in the Senate, that's what we need to do now. First we need to email the members of the President of the Senate and the Senate Transportation Committee. It hasn't been assigned to a committee yet but that is the only logical choice and it's where all of the previous toll road bills have gone. The assignment will happen when it is first introduced into the senate which will be very soon. So please email today.
You can read more in depth at the Tollroad Warriors' BLOGSPOT or in previous posts here. You can use the sample letter below or write your own.
Sample email:
Subject: Kill HB-1068 (Toll Roads)
Dear President Fitz-Gerald and members of the Transportation Committee:
HB-1068 concerning toll road requirements was initiated by citizens in the eastern plains to address the blight on the real estate market caused by toll road corridor claims. After meeting minimal initial requirements a company can exist in perpetuity without even applying to CDOT for approval of their plans. Several hundred people attended the House Transportation and Energy Committee hearing to support the bill. Now those same people want the bill killed. After the committee hearing the bill was amended to appease the Front Range Toll Road Company, CDOT and title insurers, no landowners were included.
What appear to be time limits and spending requirements are completely ineffectual. There is an 18 month limit to begin work but it allows planning activities to satisfy the requirement. There is a seven year limit to begin actual construction but it only begins after a plan is added to the Comprehensive Statewide Transportation Plan, if a company never seeks approval the seven year clock never starts.
These are just a few of the problem with HB-1068. More time needs to be spent finding a solution to these issues. Please vote no on HB-1068.
Sincerely,
(Your name and address)
Use this list with Outlook and most other programs:
joan.fitzgerald.senate@state.co.us; isgarsenate@frontier.net; nancyspence@qwest.net; scott.renfroe.senate@state.co.us; senatormay@ronmay.org; SenBob@msn.com; stak@mailstation.com; suzanne.williams.senate@state.co.us
Use this list with AOL or other programs requiring comma separators:
joan.fitzgerald.senate@state.co.us, isgarsenate@frontier.net, nancyspence@qwest.net, scott.renfroe.senate@state.co.us, senatormay@ronmay.org, SenBob@msn.com, stak@mailstation.com, suzanne.williams.senate@state.co.us
New on 3/7 - Your Emails are Needed. In my last post I was hopeful that HB-1068, the bill currently before the state house of representatives, could be amended into something that would give us some help this year. A number of participants assure me that that isn't happening and we need to recommend that this bill be killed without going any further. The bill is scheduled for a third reading and final vote in the house on Thursday, March 8 so if you can send an email to the members of the house tonight or tomorrow please do so.
The biggest problem with the bill is that it doesn't work as advertised to limit the duration of toll road planning. It is supposed to be a solution to the problem of letting toll road companies live forever without making any progress. But if this bill were to pass the Front Range Toll Road Company would never need to do another thing, they'd be with us forever without needing to build an inch of road. Ray Wells' lobbyists are now working overtime to get the bill passed, but no one else is.
Sharon Croghan of the Save Our Homes Coalition was initially behind the bill but now wants it killed. Robert Thomasson and the High Plains Coalition are also now opposed. Karen Shipper of Elbert County was working for the bill but is now opposed. I've received many emails from those involved in the negotiations who are now opposed to the bill. You can read the bill HERE.
You can read Robert Thomasson's detailed commentary on the bill at the BLOGSPOT. He also has a sample email that you can send. Or you can just send a short note like "Please vote no on HB-1068. It doesn't adequately address the perpetuity or disclaimer problems." Use a sublect line of "Kill HB-1068 (Toll Roads)" and sign your name and address. Then copy the address list below into the "To:" line.
Here are the House addresses: akerrhd26@earthlink.net; al.white.house@state.co.us; alice.borodkin.house@state.co.us; alice.madden.house@state.co.us; aliceb321@aol.com; amy.stephens.house@state.co.us; anne.mcgihon.house@state.co.us; bernie.buescher.house@state.co.us; bernie@buescher.org; bill.cadman.house@state.co.us; bill@billcrane.org; bob.gardner.house@state.co.us; buffie2006@hotmail.com; cheri.jahn.house@state.co.us; cherylin.peniston.house@state.co.us; claire.levy.house@state.co.us; cory.gardner.house@state.co.us; dan.gibbs.house@state.co.us; dave.schultheis.house@state.co.us; david.balmer.house@state.co.us; debbie.benefield.house@state.co.us; debbie.stafford.house@state.co.us; diane.hoppe.house@state.co.us; dianne.primavera.house@state.co.us; don@donmarostica.com; dorothy.butcher.house@state.co.us; ellen.roberts.house@state.co.us; gardner@plains.net; gwyngreen@yahoo.com; jack.pommer.house@state.co.us; james.kerr.house@state.co.us; jerry.sonnenberg.house@state.co.us; jim.riesberg.house@state.co.us; joe.rice.house@state.co.us; joe.stengel.house@state.co.us; joel.judd.house@state.co.us; joeljudd@aol.com; john.kefalas.house@state.co.us; john.soper.house@state.co.us; johnsoper235@comcast.net; joshua.penry.house@state.co.us; judy.solano.house@state.co.us; kathleencurry@montrose.net; keith@keithking.org; ken.summers.house@state.co.us; kent.lambert.house@state.co.us; kevin@kevinlundberg.com; kjerry.frangas.house@state.co.us; larry.liston.house@state.co.us; marklarson@gobrainstorm.net; marsha.looper.house@state.co.us; mary.hodge.house@state.co.us; maryhodge@aol.com; McFadyen2002@hotmail.com; michael.cerbo.house@state.co.us; michael.merrifield.house@state.co.us; michael@michaelgarcia.info; mike.may.house@state.co.us; morgan.carroll.house@state.co.us; morgancarroll@webaccess.net; mpcerbo@yahoo.com; nancy.todd.house@state.co.us; rafael.gallegos.house@state.co.us; randy.fischer.house@state.co.us; ray.rose.house@state.co.us; reppaul@aol.com; rob.witwer.house@state.co.us; romanoff@coloradohouse.org; rosemary.marshall.house@state.co.us; sara.gagliardi.house@state.co.us; stella.hicks.house@state.co.us; steve.king.house@state.co.us; ted.harvey.house@state.co.us; terrance.carroll.house@state.co.us; tom.massey.house@state.co.us; victor.mitchell.house@state.co.us; wes.mckinley.house@state.co.us
New on 3/3 - Infinity + 7 . On Thursday HB1068 was passed by the House Transportation and Energy Committee by a 13-0 vote. It now goes back to the full house for two more readings and a vote before it can go to the senate. The bill that passed was a complete rewrite of the earlier versions. After two earlier days of hearings the committee was unwilling to pass the bill unless it was limited to the most pressing issues, "disclaimers" and "perpetuity." The new form of the bill deals adequately with the disclaimer issues but offers no solution to the problem of toll road companies being able to survive indefinitely without doing anything. The bill needs to be amended keeping only the sections related to disclaimer problems, the perpetuity issue needs more study and should be left for another legislative session. ----------------------- Disclaimers. In 2006 HB1003 was passed requiring toll road companies to file a disclaimer of interest with the county clerk of each county where their road would pass. The disclaimer says that the toll road company has no legal claim to properties in the corridor. This was intended to reassure anyone concerned that there was no easement or other encumbrance on the property. It backfired, instead of showing that titles are clear, title insurance companies decided that they need to list it is a possible complication. I don't know how lenders are reacting to it but it can't be helping.
HB1068 will void the disclaimers and let title insurers stop listing them without fear of being sued. The voiding "conclusively establishes that the disclaimer of interest or map does not affect the title to any property or have any other legal effect, and a title insurance company shall exclude a void disclaimer of interest or map from any documents it prepares." Some people are concerned because the bill also shields toll road companies and county clerks from liability associated with the disclaimers. But the language is very specific that this protection only applies to filings done pursuant to this particular paragraph of this statute. The companies and clerks were required by law to do the filing so they shouldn't have to defend against lawsuits for obeying the law. ---------------------- A little history. Some toll road opponents have called HB1003 "hasty and flawed" legislation for prescribing these disclaimers. In truth the disclaimer requirement was in every draft of HB1342 in 2005. That bill passed but was vetoed by Governor Owens. In 2006 the disclaimers were in every draft of HB1003, it wasn't slipped in at the last minute. The same is true of requiring notification letters and corridor descriptions in the incorporation papers. We all supported those bills, no one foresaw the problem that the disclaimers would cause. ---------------------- Perpetuity. The other issue that the bill attempts to address is that after meeting a few minimal requirements a toll road can stay around for decades even with no progress. The Super Slab was formed in 1986 and hasn't built an inch of roadway. HB1003 specified that work must begin within three years, HB1068 shortens that to 18 months. The problem is that "planning, design, environmental mitigation, and other preconstruction work" meet the requirement. So shuffling a few papers and calling it planning is all they have to do. There is also a requirement that they "continue the work from day to day until at least five hundred thousand dollars have been expended" but there is no time limit on how long they can take to spend the $500,000. Surely the intention was that it be spent in the 18 months but it doesn't say that.
HB1068 adds a requirement for "actual construction" to begin within seven years but that time period doesn't start until after a toll road has been added to the statewide transportation plan. A road isn't added to the statewide plan until after all of the environmental impact studies, transportation commission hearings, and other requirements. The Front Range Toll Road has not even applied to begin that process and may never do so. So they can exist for infinity plus seven years without doing anything. This "perpetuity" is just what lawmakers and even Ray Wells' lawyer agree is not just. HB1068 doesn't solve it.
Various formulas were proposed to prevent this problem. Most required annual spending amounts or specific targets for progress. CDOT and others rejected these saying they would preclude private investment in roads. The problem is that they are protecting speculators, not investors. With the Super Slab we have the owners of 630 square miles of real estate, many thousands of people, having their lives disrupted because one man would like to make a percentage on a three billion dollar deal. And the state is standing by the one man rather than the thousands who own the land. There is no investor that they are standing up for. --------------------- Amend it and pass it. The title insurance problem is critical and needs to be dealt with this session. The solution to the perpetuity problem hasn't been found yet. Rather than passing ineffectual measures now and wanting them changed later the bill should be pared down to keep only the voiding of disclaimers and one other thing. HB1068 requires companies to submit an annual status report. They should keep that. Let's see how many reams of paper it takes Ray Wells to report that he hasn't accomplished a damn thing. ----------------------------------------------------------- You can read the newest version of HB1068 HERE. ----------------------------------------------------------- Here are two articles on the latest HB1068 news: Springs Gazette Pueblo Chieftain
New on 2/21 - Committee hearing news. A Chieftain Article and a Denver Post Article. And here is Sharon Croghan's update on the committee hearing for HB-1068:
200 plus people attended the hearing today for HB07-1068 – thank-you sincerely, to those who took the time from work and family to attend the hearing!
The testimony from corridor residents, and a few from outside the corridor, was passionate, truthful and from the heart and helped the Transportation Committee members understand the issue facing corridor residents.
All the committee members agreed, at the end of the hearing, there are serious unintended consequences caused by last years legislation, being experienced by corridor residents which need to be addressed.
These issues were drilled down to: 1) a cloud over properties within the corridor 2) a toll road corridor filed in perpetuity with no requirements to move forward.
Unfortunately, most committee members believed HB1068 did not adequately address these issues and attempted to solve too many issues at once.
Thus, a compromise was reached to draw up new legislation for this session to clear the cloud on titles of property within the corridor and a second bill to address the “in perpetuity” issue of existing private toll roads. Along with these two pieces of legislation, discussions will continue during the summer session with the Transportation Legislative Review Committee and corridor residents to draft legislation for the 2008 session to add further regulations for private toll roads.
All is not lost, hope springs anew.
With the cooperation of the members of the Transportation Committee to address the harm being done to corridor residents, good legislation will yet be drafted and passed this session. It may not be all we had hoped for, but will be a step in the right direction.
Please take a few minutes and thank the committee members for the time and attention they gave corridor residents today and encourage them to continue to protect the private property rights of all Coloradoans.
New on 2/20 - HB-1068 Laid Over. HB-1068 was laid over today by the House Transportation and Energy Committee. Today's session was a continuation of the hearing begun last Thursday. A lawyer for the Super Slab admitted in reply to a question last Thursday that toll road companies should not be allowed to exist "in perpetuity" after meeting the initial filing requirements. That was repeated today by the CDOT representative and acknowledged many times by committee members. The problem is that they didn't feel that HB-1068 adequately addresses the solution. Herman Stockinger, representing CDOT, said that something needs to be done to address the cloud on property and that "we need to sit down and figure out what the right approach is."
So it is agreed all around that changes are needed, the question is how to put a deadline on a toll road proposal without making it totally impossible to build one. The committee decided that more thought needs to go into those restrictions.
New on 2/14 - The new text of HB-1068 as of 2/14 is HERE.
New on 2/14 - About face. - First a correction to yesterday's post. The City of Colorado Springs is not lobbying against HB-1068. That is an error on the Secretary of State's webpage. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- When HB-1068 was introduced on January 10 I objected to the removal of sections of law that required companies to declare a corridor for their road and to notify all of the landowners in that corridor. By the time landowners were notified under that first version of the bill it would have been too late to participate in the public hearings and environmental comment periods. The bill has been revised several times and, at least in the versions I saw on Tuesday night, those sections have been restored.
There are two significant additions to the bill. First, new and existing toll road companies will have to submit a detailed proposal to CDOT for a preliminary evaluation. If they are not approved the company cannot reapply for five years. I've recommended that the corporation be administratively dissolved in this case rather than just given a timeout. Dissolution is the penalty in another section of the bill and would make sense here. With dissolution there is no question that any disclaimers of interest or corridors filed are now extinct. A five year timeout isn't assurance enough to enter a thirty year mortgage.
The second major addition is a requirement that money be spent annually and not just one time. I don't think the amount has been finalized but the idea is that a company won't be able to achieve permanent status by paying a PR company or engineering firm to create their map and website and then never doing another thing. Sound familiar? Last August Wells' spokesman Jason Hopfer said "we're still formulating an investor group. At this point, I'm not able to disclose who is involved in Spirit of Cheyenne because that's one of the vehicles for the investor group, and investors come and go. It's a work in progress." Yesterday Hopfer told the Associated Press that they are "putting together a group of investors." Six months, no progress. Twenty one years, no progress. They need to shut down the 7-45-101 corporation and form an investor or study group like Front Range Commuter Rail. The proposal and spending requirements of HB-1068 would most likely make them do that.
The House Transportation and Energy Committee will hear HB-1068 on Thursday. Assuming the edits discussed today survive the next 24 hours until the hearing it is a good bill that should be approved by the committee. If I can get the final draft tomorrow I'll post it on the website. Get to the hearing if you can. It will be after the adjournment of the house. Maybe 11am. Go earlier if you want to be sure you're there for the coin toss and kickoff.
New on 2/13 - The Tipping Point. - Recent events have put us in a critical situation requiring action from the legislature. I've include a brief outline first.
1. Some title insurance companies are now flagging properties in the Super Slab corridor with a note about the filed "Notice to Construct a Toll Road and Disclaimer of Interest." This will have a chilling effect on the already suffering real estate market in the corridor.
2. Repealing legislation that requires toll roads to disclose their plans and notify land owners is NOT the solution.
3. Only companies with plans and financing who are ready to start building should be allowed to incorporate under CRS 7-45-101 (Toll Road laws).
4. Developers without plans and financing can exist as ordinary corporations or partnerships until they are ready. This way they won't have filed the corridors and disclaimers that are causing the problems.
5. There is no problem with making these changes because the Colorado Constitution allows the legislature to alter or revoke the charter of corporations that are injurious to the people of the state.
6. Rep. Marsha Looper's bill HB-1068 deals with these issues but we haven't yet seen the version that will be presented to the House Transportation and Energy Committee.
7. Miscellaneous stuff. Lobbyists, AOL problem. --------- Definition from techtarget.com: The tipping point is the critical point in an evolving situation that leads to a new and irreversible development. The term is said to have originated in the field of epidemiology when an infectious disease reaches a point beyond any local ability to control it from spreading more widely. A tipping point is often considered to be a turning point. --------- A tipping point was reached in Colorado's toll road situation when the Land Title Guarantee Company instituted a note that will show on all title searches for properties in the corridor of the Front Range Toll Road. I'm told that some other title companies have followed suit. The note will show that a "Notice to Construct a Toll Road and Disclaimer of Interest" has been filed for an area including that property. While the disclaimer of interest is an acknowledgement by the company that they have no rights of any kind to the property, it raises the question of whether it will be taken in the future. Buyers aren't going to spend their life savings when there's that sort of risk and lenders may not be willing to finance these properties. A ReMax agent quoted in the Elbert County News says that buyers don't want to buy property in the toll road corridor. These stories are becoming more common and I'm receiving emails from concerned realtors and home buyers wanting information about the toll road corridor.
For the last two years eastern plains residents have complained at house and senate hearings that when they bought their property the toll road didn't show up on the title search. To address this, two bills in 2006 (SB-115 and HB-1003) required toll roads to file a notification and disclaimer with county clerks. The idea was that the disclaimer would assure everyone that there was no "claim" on their land by the toll road company. I doubt that anyone anticipated that the filed DISCLAIMER would show up on title searches as if it were a CLAIM on the land but that is what has happened. Title insurance companies survive by raising everything that MIGHT be an issue whether it is a problem or not. Nevertheless, the solution is not to repeal these requirements. That would be saying that as buyers we wanted this information but now that we are sellers we want it covered up. Getting the most information out to the public is the best policy, we shouldn't allow those provisions of HB-1003 to be changed.
As an additional note on HB-1003, it is getting some unfair criticism lately. You would think it has done nothing and we were all against it. Remember that before HB-1003 a toll road company could build a road just because they wanted to. They didn't require any CDOT or environmental approvals or anything else. The start of work requirements in HB-1003 were not strong enough and that needs to be corrected this year.
The Front Range Toll Road Company was formed in 1986 and has not built a single inch of roadway. That is the problem, that should not be allowed. A law passed in the 1800s required a toll road company to begin work within 90 days and spend $500. That was still the law in 1986. Ray Wells filed an affidavit saying he had met that requirement. At today's prices $500 would build about 3 inches of roadway but he didn't build anything, he didn't explain how he spent the money. That law was repealed in the 1990s and in 2006 HB-1003 passed a requirement that $500,000 be spent in three years. That is the price of 250 feet of roadway.
The law for starting and keeping a toll road company needs to require that the company get the finances together and start construction in short order. Incorporation under CRS 7-45-101 needs to be allowed only for someone who already has a plan and is ready to start the approval process. If they don't keep the schedule they need to be dissolved. This will keep speculators from filing a claim and holding it for years with no ability to build the project. These kind of requirements have been discussed with Rep. Looper and will hopefully be included in the next draft of HB-1068.
Former Governor Owens, CDOT and others have expressed concern that these kind of laws would prevent private investors from being able to build toll roads. They wouldn't. It can take years to develop plans and find investors. During that time they can form an ordinary corporation, not a toll road corporation under 7-45-101. Front Range Commuter Rail ( www.rangerxpress.com ) is a tax exempt 501-c3 corporation formed to do studies and find investors for passenger trains along I-25. They are raising millions to do studies so that they can apply for a federal grant. They are not incorporated as a railroad. The Front Range Toll Road could do the same thing. Ray Wells already has a handful of corporations related to the Super Slab which aren't toll road companies. He has Toll Road Associates Limited Partnership, Front Range Toll Road Management LLC, Toll Road Management Inc., Spirit of Cheyenne Inc., Cheyenne Land & Cattle Company Inc., Cheyenne Princess Corporation and TFC Partners, LLLP which are all related to the Super Slab but aren't formed under 7-45-101. He can use any of those to do his planning until he is ready to apply to CDOT for approval of an Environmental Impact Study and the other required steps. During that time there would not be a filed toll road corridor, no disclaimer of interest on file, no problems on title searches. There might still be a small negative effect on property values but as long as we have free speech we can't stop people from making plans to build things.
Article XV Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution allows the legislature to alter, revoke or annul the corporate charter of a corporation if it may be "injurious to the citizens of the state." This has been used not just to alter a charter but as justification for laws that placed additional burdens on corporations. We have a very injurious situation here and the legislature needs to rid us of these toll road corporations that aren't building any toll roads. ------------------ On Feb. 7, I pointed out that only one lobbyist had signed up to lobby on HB-1068. Now there are 11. 1. Northwest Parkway Authority (monitoring) 2. Lombard & Clayton (monitoring) 3. DRCOG (monitoring) 4. E470 Public Highway Authority (monitoring) 5. Northwest Parkway (monitoring) 6. American Planning Assoc. (monitoring) 7. Prairie Falcon Parkway Express (opposed) 8. [This one is an error. C. Spgs is NOT opposing ther bill.] City of Colorado Springs (opposed) 9. Intermountain Corporate Affairs (monitoring) 10. DRCOG (2nd lobbyist)(monitoring) 11. Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (monitoring) ------------- My last updates bounced from most AOL addresses. If you use AOL you may need to check the website for updates.
New on 2/9 - Retraction from the Ranchland News. - The HPCRTP and Robert Thomasson have received (10:44 AM, 2.9.07) via FAX a retraction from John Hill, editor and columnist for the Ranchland News. Below is that retraction which will appear in next week's Ranchland News. (Read the post before this for an explanation.)
Ranchland News John Hill 2-16j hill column
Ranchland rambler Retraction
I retract the allegation that, as a spokesman for the High Plains Coalition for Responsible Transportation Policy, Robert Thomasson lobbied legislators at the state capitol to kill HB 07-1068, Rep. Marsha Looper's anti-toll road bill.
The allegation appeared in the Ranchland Rambler column in the Feb. 8, 2007, issue of the Ranchland News.
I also retract the allegations that HPCRTP practices "communication...one-way only", "believes that the status-quo is acceptable", that "so long as the proposed [three-mile wide Prairie Falcon Parkway Express Company, PTR corridor for the proposed toll road] route is not through their property the proposed toll road is someone else's problems", and that HPCRTP actions are "partisan politics".
At the time I wrote the column and listed the allegations, I had some information, but I did not confirm other information.
I did not call Rep. Marsha Looper to learn her point of view of the actions of Thomasson and HPCRTP regarding HB 07-1068.
I did not read the HPCRTP blog, where emails sent to legislators and Colorado Department of Transportation representatives regarding Looper's proposed bill are posted.
I did not call Thomasson to confirm the content of his emails and discussions with legislators and CDOT representatives.
I considered the information I had valid information from authoritative sources, including:
-Thomasson's letter to the editor "New toll road legislation misses the mark", published in the Jan. 25 issue of the Ranchland News;
-the disclaimer prepared by Karen Shipper which she hand-delivered to the Ranchland News, which was published in the Feb. 8, 2007, issue of the Ranchland News; and
-a January letter from the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express Company, PTR, to Elbert County Clerk and Recorder Amy Fordyce effectively encumbering the titles of property owners whose property is within the proposed three-milecorridor listed on a 10-page, single-spaced list attached to the letter.
I met with Thomasson and representatives of the High Plains Coalition For Responsible Transportation Policy on Feb. 8, in Kiowa.
During the meeting, I spoke by telephone with Rep. Marsha Looper and read an email sent by Thomasson to [Rep.] Alice Borodkin.
I concluded that this retraction is necessary.
New on 2/9 - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. - This week's edition of the Ranchland News has a couple of Super Slab related articles. I am including Robert Thomasson's response to one of them below and I'll comment on the other.
The title of the first article, by editor John Hill, reads "Web site reports nearly 50 percent signup." I wondered what website this was and who signed up for what? "Operators of a Web site opposing a proposed toll road report a nearly 50 percent signup of property owners in the three-mile wide proposed toll road corridor through El Paso County." Wow! We only have 17% of the parcels signed for in the Not For Sale effort, I wish we had 50%. But the article goes on to say that it is Stupidslab.com reporting this result. Not true, I have never mentioned a percentage on the website nor in emails but the number is 17% not 50%.
The final paragraph of the article says: "The success of this program is dependent on the majority of folks in the corridor signing these letters and mailing them," the Web site reports. "We have gained substantial territory in the Hanover region." I have no argument with either statement but I never said those things and never wrote them.
I'm sure Mr. Hill read those things somewhere and just attributed them wrongly, no big deal. But in another error ridden article he assassinates the character of HPCRTP member Robert Thomasson. A retraction will be printed next week but those never get as much space as the original article so I have a few things to say about it. By the way, this all seems bizarre and unnecessary since an agreement was reached last Monday on HB-1068. The bill is being re-drafted and if it comes out as it was discussed it will be supported all around.
When HB-1068 was introduced I disagreed strongly with much of it and sent an update saying so. The proponents of the bill were not happy with me and they let me know that. Robert Thomasson of HPCRTP also took issue with the bill and messages were posted about it on his blog. Although I have been more critical of the bill Robert has taken most of the heat. The difference being that I live in the toll road corridor and Robert doesn't. He has been accused of everything from not caring about people in the corridor to actually being paid off by Ray Wells. This is like saying Woodward and Bernstein had been paid off by Nixon. What did Nixon (or Wells) get for their money? Nixon was driven from office and Robert Thomasson has been on Ray Wells like a duck on a junebug. In July 2006 Robert discovered that the counties had been contacted by Kellogg, Brown and Root. Robert called KBR to find out what they were doing and he called Ray Wells too. I didn't do that and none of the other people in this movement did it.
As a result of that discovery we got the maps from the seven counties showing where the new three-mile wide corridor was. The corridor was pretty well east of the Thomasson's house so he could easily have dropped out and forgotten about it. But he didn't. Through July and August Robert and I were checking the Secretary of State's site to see if any new companies were incorporated with the newly required "PTR" (private toll road) designation in their name. Robert found it, Prairie Falcon Parkway Express, PTR. When Wells had his big press conference to announce his plans we had already published his maps and lists of landowners and the new name. No one was questioning his allegiance then or for about seven months after he knew the corridor had bypassed him. He continued to work. He held a meeting in Elbert. He spoke at our meeting in Pueblo. He was interviewed by the New York Times and Colorado Public Radio and many others. No one suggested that he was trying to save his own neck by keeping the toll road corridor elsewhere. No one told him to shut up.
But then he objected to letting a toll road company keep their plans quiet until they had been approved by the State Transportation Commission. I asked people to send emails titled "Kill HB-1068," he didn't do that. I sent one of those emails myself, he titled his "HB07-1068 is Flawed." I live in the corridor, he doesn't. So the emails and the letters to the editor began talking about "people who don't live in the corridor" trying to undermine the bill. In the Ranchland News, John Hill says that Robert should "shut up" and he notes that he doesn't live in the corridor. John Hill doesn't live in the corridor so should he follow his own advice?
I've seen this geographic tactic used before. In March 2005 the Front Range Toll Road Company put on a presentation in Pueblo. The first thing they did was ask people who didn't live in the corridor in Pueblo County to move to the sides of the auditorium. They obviously intended to keep them out of the discussion, their opinions were irrelevant. At the end of the meeting I spoke to two people who were sitting next to me in the center section. They had come down from El Paso County and had not moved when the Super Slab lobbyist told them to. Their names were Marsha Looper and Chuck Shaw. Now the same tactic is being used by the supporters of a bill sponsored by Marsha Looper (but not by Marsha) to try to discredit the Thomassons and others from outside of the new corridor. The suggestion that they are trying to block some wonderful new legislation to save their own necks is absurd, it is ad hominem, it is beneath those saying it. There was very little defense of the introduced bill on the issues, it needed to be changed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After Monday's agreement I removed the links to send opposition emails. The people who asked to be add to a list in opposition HERE. There are corridor residents and people who have been very active in our movement. Others sent emails to the Transportation Committee but didn't ask to be on the list. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is Robert Thomasson's update from last night.
Subject: Toll Road Warrior Update Feb. 8, 2007 LOOK FOR A RETRACTION FROM JOHN HILL, EDITOR OF THE RANCHLAND NEWS, ON THIS BLOG TOMORROW AFTER 10:00 AM. MR. HILL ASSURED THE BOARD OF THE HPCRTP THAT IT WILL ALSO APPEAR IN THE FEBRUARY 15TH EDITION OF THE RANCHLAND NEWS. ==================================================== Dear Toll Road Warriors,
Imagine my surprise when I opened my copy of today's Ranchland News (February 8, 2007) only to find that a large article by editor John Hill was about the High Plains Coalition For Responsible Transportation Policy (HPCRTP) and specifically, me.
In the article (p.2) I was accused of attempting to kill HB07-1068 in a 'self-serving' action. It was pointed out in several places that our home no longer is in the pathway of the filed corridor of the Super Slab. Mr. Hill suggested that I was lobbying at the Capitol in opposition to HB07-1068. It was reported in this article entitled Ranchland Rambler - Protect Property Rights, that I claimed to be 'the voice of Elbert County.' It was questioned whether the HPCRTP was accused of not being committed to hold public meetings, to hear from residents, of not proposing legislation. It also questioned whether we found the status quo acceptable.
I was told to "Shut up" by Mr. Hill, and it was questioned whether my actions were based on 'partisan politics.' What is most disturbing about these damaging accusations is that Mr. Hill, nor the people who supplied him with the information for his story, bothered to contact me or other members of the HPCTRP to verify facts.
Upon reading the editorial we immediately contacted Mr. Hill and requested a meeting. We met John Hill earlier this evening, accompanied by three other HPCRTP board members, and a concerned Toll Road Warrior from El Paso/Elbert County. We supplied Mr. Hill with concrete evidence that the accusations leveled against us were unfounded.
The following points were supplied to the editor:
1) I (Robert Thomasson) have only scheduled two meetings at the Capitol this legislative session. The first was to discuss the position that Environment Colorado would be taking on HB07-1068. The second was at the invitation of Representative Marsha Looper (R-Calhan), sponsor of HB07-1068. (Monday, February 5, 2007) The invitation came as a result of numerous telephone conversations between us where we discussed the merits and flaws of the proposed legislation. Representative Looper agreed that our concerns were legitimate and would be addressed in the bill's amended language. Other than sending personal emails to the House Transportation Committee, our board members have not scheduled a single meeting at the Capitol with legislators to influence their vote on HB07-1068.
2) On this blog we have posted others' positions on HB07-1068, including those of Rick Brown and Rob Dougherty. Their emails to the members of the House Transportation Committee included the words, "Kill the bill." I was accused of sending that message to the Committee, when in fact my emails specifically said that the bill was 'flawed' and needed to be improved and carefully studied before the Committee members made up their minds. A copy of my email is included at the end of this entry.
3) I have never presumed to be the voice of Elbert or any other county. It does not appear in this blog, nor does it appear in the Elbert County News 'Toll Road Warrior' column, of which we are the authors. That being said, Rick Brown and I are the spokespersons for the HPCTRP and speak for the members of our board and the people who support us. It is our right and our responsibility as concerned citizens and board members of a citizens' coalition to express our educated opinions and disseminate accurate information.
4) It was implied that the HPCRTP no longer holds meetings and invites public input. We pointed out to Mr. Hill that we provide regular updates via the blog, and the TR Warrior Updates. We also overlap our coverage by forwarding Rob Dougherty's Stupidslab.com updates and analysis. Since we have never had definitive language of HB07-1068, we felt it was premature to hold meetings based on what we hoped would be in the bill.
5) It is not true that we have not put forward toll road legislation this session. We are attempting to gain sponsorship for a late-status bill which we hope to be talking about in the near future. Until the turbulent issues surrounding HB07-1068 are resolved, any other toll road bill is unlikely to gain momentum in this extremely busy legislative session. As we explained to Mr. Hill, our toll road battles in the state legislature will not end for several years to come.
We offered to show Mr. Hill the paper trail of our efforts to become involved in the current debate regarding language for the amended language of HB07-1068. We are able to show anyone detailed information that we have been actively engaged and positively engaged with proponents of the bill since November, 2006, and that the characterization that we had no desire to meet and offer constructive criticism is false.
We will not dignify the false accusations of the people who brought this to the attention of Mr. Hill with their 'disclaimer' by bringing their name(s) into the spotlight. We have respect for the frustations that they must be feeling. We wish that they would have afforded us the same amount of respect before dragging the HPCRTP's and our personal reputations through the mud. Their anger is misplaced, in our opinion.
We would have the same opinion regarding the initial wording of HB07-1068 if our home were adjacent to theirs in the Super Slab corridor. We will continue to fight, not only for our rights, but theirs also.
As always STAY FOCUSED. STAY INFORMED. STOP THE SUPER SLAB.
Sincerely, Robert Thomasson Spokesperson, HPCRTP, Elbert County ****************************************** EMAIL SENT TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FROM R. THOMASSON (BEFORE AMENDED LANGUAGE):
From: "Robert V. Thomasson"
Dear Representative Borodkin,
The proposed toll road bill being brought forward by Representative Marsha Looper (R-Calhan) HB07-1068 is flawed.
If passed in its current form, it will undo many of the protections granted to the residents of Eastern Colorado by last year's crucial toll road legislation. As a board member of the (HPCRTP) High Plains Coalition for Responsible Transportation Policy, I was one of those citizens invited by Jack Pommer to help negotiate the tenets of HB06-1003. It is my opinion that HB07-1068, while well-intentioned, will be harmful for the following reasons: . By making notification to residents living in a proposed corridor only possible after a project has been accepted into the comprehensive statewide transportation plan, citizens currently living in or prospective property buyers will not have adequate time to raise objections to a proposed project . The bill requirement of purchasing 80% of the required property before CDOT will allow its use of eminent domain will make it nearly impossible for private investment to join into a PPI and help build transportation infrastructure. HB06-1003 was not intended to kill all private toll roads, but instead provide necessary standards for all toll road projects . The bill gives the appearance of targeting a specific project. Responsible transportation policy requires a bill should be designed to regulate all future projects, not just revoke the filing of an undesirable one.
I understand the argument that a cloud exists on the titles of the properties currently in the three mile corridor of the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express, but it is highly unlikely that this bill will provide the relief the proponents of this bill are seeking. Please consider these thoughts when deciding the future of HB07-1068.
Sincerely,
Robert Thomasson HPCRTP Board member
New on 2/7 - Letter filed in Arapahoe County (Acrobat file, read the post below for an explanation.)
New on 2/7 - Public Records - A number of eastern plains residents met with Rep. Marsha Looper on Monday and worked out a new version of HB-1068. It has been re-written with the notification issues worked out and other provisions added to address the protection of property values. It will be a couple of days before the re-draft is available but it sounds like it will be a bill that we should support. The Transportation and Energy Committee hearing on HB-1068 has been moved back to Feb. 15. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Not For Sale maps have been updated. We are now just a few short of 1100 parcels being marked. If you live in the corridor and haven't done one yet please do so. We've already shown that there are not enough willing sellers in any county for the road to be built without using eminent domain. We need to continue gathering the letters to show that virtually no one would be willing to sell. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In January the Front Range Toll Road Company filed letters with the County Clerks of the seven counties in the Super Slab path. Attached to each letter was a list of the property owners in that county who were sent certified letters last August. SB-115 which passed last year requires toll road companies to file a list of properties in their corridor within six months but that isn't the reason given by the company for this letter. They say that they have done it to satisfy a request by the title insurance industry. The Land Title Guarantee Company has said they will now show a note on title searches indicating that a "Notice to Construct a Toll Road and Disclaimer of Interest" letter has been filed effecting the property. I've emailed them asking why they haven't done this for the other 15 (or so) toll road corridors. No reply so far.
Only, the Arapahoe County website has the letter viewable online. I'll have it at www.stupidslab.com Wednesday morning so check there. This is the first time we've seen an "official" list of the names for Arapahoe County. The other six counties gave us the same lists that they provided to Kellogg, Brown & Root but Arapahoe could never determine whether they'd been contacted. If you find differences between this new list and the one I created last year let me know.
Here is the body of the letter:
The purpose of this letter and the attached horizontally-configured, legal-sized list is two-fold.
This letters primary purpose is to convey and officially record, the enclosed list of real property owners and associated mailing addresses and parcel numbers to whom, to which. and about which the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express Company, PTR, sent official notice via certified mail on August 28, 2006. That certified letter notified property owners of the formation of a three-mile wide, 210 mile long corridor (otherwise known as a study area) within which the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express Company, PTR, and its associates, intend to design and construct a 1,200 foot wide private toll road and associated multi-modal transportation, rail and utility components.
The Prairie Falcon Parkway Express Company, PTR intends this recording to satisfy Colorado's title insurance industry request that the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express Company, PTR, record ownership, parcel number, and basic contact information for parcels which wholly, or in part, lie within the above referenced study area.
Imbedded in the attached list lies the second purpose of this letter which is to convey and record the list of above referenced property owners whose certified letters the United States Post Office returned to the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express Company, PTR, as undeliverable.
The County Assessors office compiled and supplied the list of real property owner names, parcel numbers and mailing addresses to the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express Company, PTR,for the purpose of issuing certified letters.
****************** End of Letter ******************
The Pueblo County version of this letter and list runs 19 pages. The Pueblo County Clerk (and several other clerks in the seven corridor counties) charge $1.25 per page for copies. That's $23.75 for the Pueblo version. Other counties have more parcels of land so they will cost even more. Senator Andrew McElhany has introduced a bill, SB-045, which would limit the charge to 10 cents per copy. That would be $1.90 for the Pueblo document which is much more reasonable. The Senate Finance Committee amended the price to 25 cents maximum. That's $4.75 for those 19 pages in Pueblo, better than $23.75 but still about 3 times what Kinkos would charge. If it doesn't get up to $2.00 per page by the time it makes it through the House this is a good bill. The current limit of $1.25 was set at a time when records had to be retrieved from file cabinets and fed through a photocopier.
When I got a 12 page document from the clerk last year it cost me $15 for them to click "Print" with the mouse. The reason for the law is to cover expenses and not to raise revenue or discourage people from getting information. So it's time that the limit is lowered to reflect today's lower costs of copying.
In the last two years I've had some government offices make copies free while others charge the maximum allowed. Many of them were happy to email the files to me for free, emailing a 100 page document takes a few seconds while printing it can take a while. Another office copied documents to a CD for me. Email or CD copies of documents aren't mentioned in this bill but that would be a good addition. When the documents are available in digital form they should be provided for a minimal charge or for free.
The counties maintain their mapping data with geographic information systems (GIS) software which uses "shape files" to store the data. As with the free Adobe Acrobat viewer there is a free ArcViewer that lets you view shape files. At the Arapahoe County website you can download their shape files for free. Then with the viewer you can select the layers you want to display: roads, rivers, school districts, railroads, property parcels, etc. The same data that is free from Arapahoe County starts at $600 from Larimer County. And from Pueblo County it will cost you $26,000! There needs to be some price control for GIS data as there is for photocopies.
Another area where I've done a lot of research is the business section of the Secretary of State's website. You can search for a corporation where you know the name. Or you can search for words like "toll road." One thing you can't do is search by the date of incorporation to list the recently filed corporations. For citizens trying to keep up with toll roads or railroads or any other sector you should be able to do this. There are subscription services available from the Secretary of State that will list the new corporations but the cheapest option is $200 per year for emailed reports. This should be free since there is no cost of printing or mailing. Until that happens, if your business subscribes to this service please let me know.
Part of HB-1003 last year requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of toll road companies. I waited for a few months after the June 6 enactment date and then contacted the Secretary of State's office. At first I was told that I was mistaken and there was no such law. We went back and forth about that a bit and finally they told me they were deciding how to do it. The law is now 8 months old and if they've created a list it isn't on the website. I can give them the names of a bunch of toll roads that should be on the list.
Another new law required the Secretary of State to keep information on which lobbyists are lobbying for which bills. The initial implementation of that on the website allowed you to search by the lobbyist's name but not by the bill number. That wasn't worth much to a person interested in following a particular bill. That has been improved to allow searching by bill number. For instance the toll road bill, HB-1068 lists lobbyist Jerry Braden representing the Northwest Parkway Authority. Their position is listed as "monitoring." None of the lobbyists listed for the Front Range Toll Road (Kathy Oatis, Steve Balcerovich, Dee Wisor, Betsy Murray, Richard Soash) are registered to lobby for HB-1068. It's a good system but the lobbyists need to keep it updated.
New on 1/29 - Updated the list of opponents of HB-1068. I will try to do this daily. Read yesterday's entry for an explanation. If you had trouble with the email feature earlier try it again HERE. See the list of opponents HERE.
New on 1/29 - Added the list of opponents of HB-1068 so far. Quite a few for a Sunday when many people don't read email. Read yesterday's entry for an explanation. Send an email to the House committee and add your name to the opponents HERE. See the list of opponents HERE.
New on 1/28 - It's Email Time Again - The people who are promoting the bill that would undo most of the progress made last year are asking for emails of support to members of the House Transportation and Energy Committee. We need to do the same thing showing our opposition to the bill. So that members will not confuse our emails with the other group I'd suggest we all use the subject line "Kill HB-1068 (Toll Roads)." It's possible that the bill will be amended to something acceptable but as it is now it shouldn't be passed. I have created a sample email that you can use HERE. The link there will create a formatted and addressed email that you can modify or send as-is. Please take a minute to do this to protect what we've accomplished so far.
By the way, I live in the Super Slab corridor and I oppose HB-1068. Not that it matters where you live, this is a law for the whole state and not just a three mile wide strip of it. Don't let anyone tell you any different. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If I can put your name on a list of those opposed to HB-1068 please send me an email. Give me your name and county and anything else you'd like to add (job title, name of ranch, short comment, etc.) Send it to info@stupidslab.com or use the link HERE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See the 1/27 entry at the Toll Road Warrior's blog for more on HB-1068 and what we can do about it. The 1/23 article there is also new since I last sent an update. Toll Road Warriors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Wednesday the Rocky Mountain News ran an article on HB-1068 and the controversy surrounding it. "Because of last year's legislation, Wells had to send notices in August to 4,000 owners of 6,500 parcels that lie in a 3-mile-wide path of his planned high-speed toll road and freight railroad corridor. Looper's bill doesn't just weaken that requirement. It eliminates it. In fact, it prohibits private toll road companies from filing maps or sending notices until after a private toll highway is approved for the statewide transportation plan." See the complete article at Rocky on HB1068 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of a corridor description in a toll road company's incorporation papers. The promoters of HB-1068 want to have these descriptions removed because they say the description is a claim on property or a cloud on the title. It is neither. In fact, under the terms of HB-1003 the Super Slab had to file statements in seven counties saying they have no claim on any property. You can see a copy of this disclaimer HERE.
So what powers does a toll road company acquire by filing a corridor description? Here's a list:
1. They can prevent other toll roads from being built nearby.
That's the end of the list unless you count that they can now begin the multi-year process of trying to get their project approved, they can go to the starting line. Under HB-1068 a company is prohibited from putting a corridor description in their filing but they could still put it on a website and send it to newspapers. The effect on property values would be the same, it wouldn't help us at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are other issues with HB-1068 but I'll just mention one more this time. The disclaimer that I mentioned above is in the County Clerk's office in each effected county, one document for the whole county. If anyone wonders whether the toll road corridor effects your title you can refer them to that. Under HB-1068 if a toll road is added to the statewide transportation plan then a document like that has to be filed on the INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RECORD of every parcel in the corridor. It's a disclaimer of interest but it's not something I want on the title to my land, no thanks. If you don't want it on yours please let the House Transportation members know. Go to HB1068 Email and send an email.
New on 1/19 - NEW TOLL ROAD PROPOSED LEGISLATION MISSES THE MARK. - This is the first paragraph (and a link to the full story) of an article by Robert Thomasson of the High Plains Coalition for Responsible Transportation Policy. It is also in this week's Elbert County News.
Here we are in the beginning stages of the 2007 legislative session and the specter of the Superslab has already reared its ugly head. Just when we were prepared to begin protecting our property rights using the tools granted to us by last year’s HB06-1003, an unlikely source of interference may have entered the picture. It appears that the problem this year may not come from proponents of the gigantic proposed toll road, but instead from well-intentioned landowners who feel that last year’s legislation did not provide enough protection for their property values. They are seeking changes to laws regarding private toll road development in Colorado through proposed bill HB07-1068, sponsored by newly elected Colorado State Representative Marsha Looper (R-El Paso County). (Continued at the Jan. 18 entry on the Toll Road Warrior blog.)
New on 1/12 - If it ain't broke don't fix it. In December we reached 1000 parcels of land in the Super Slab corridor being designated as "not for sale" to the toll road company. We are now approaching 1100. The rate that letters are being returned has slowed but the rate that acreage is being added has increased. Recent updates from Jim Woodward have covered tens of thousands of acres. One was 32,000 acres. Take a look at the maps HERE if you haven't checked them for a while. Get your neighbors to sign one if they haven't already. We've found that leaving blank letters with people doesn't work nearly as well as getting them to sign them for you so that you can return them. You can get parcel numbers at the site or email me for assistance. (Update. Jim just sent me another 11,500 acres in El Paso County tonight. I'll try to have that map updated by Saturday.) * * * When the plans for the Super Slab made their way into the news in 2005, corridor residents complained that they'd never been told about this claim on their land. To address this the legislature passed HB-1003 in 2006. It requires toll road companies to send out certified letters to land owners and to file notices with county clerks when they incorporate. As a consequence 4,000 landowners on the eastern plains received official notices about this project, many of them learning about it for the first time. Thousands of people attended meetings up and down the corridor and joined us in opposition as a result of these notification letters. More importantly it is only fair that landowners should be told about these kind of schemes effecting their homes.
A bill introduced on the first day of the 2007 session would reverse this progress for the most part. HB-1068 says that incorporation papers filed by toll roads MUST NOT say where the corridor for the road is. Furthermore the companies could not send notices to landowners nor county clerks until their road is added to the statewide transportation plan. This is the master plan of transportation projects maintained by CDOT and the state transportation commissioners. A project is not added to the state transportation plan until it goes through a long evaluation process and once it has been added to the plan it is an approved project waiting to happen. That is when landowners would be notified under HB-1068. In football terms it's like not bringing the defense out of the locker room until your opponent is on the one yard line. It's not a good idea.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Marsha Looper who was the leader of the Super Slab opposition in El Paso County and then ran for office. I'm told that the intention is to prevent toll road corridor claims from harming property values but I don't see how it could possibly accomplish that. Just because a toll road corridor isn't described in the incorporation document doesn't mean it won't be known. To go through the process of getting added to the transportation plan they will have to show maps and describe the corridor in public hearings. Those will be published in the newspaper and will be passed around on the internet. Having people learn about a toll road that way is just as bad, and probably worse, for property values than requiring full disclosure and notification of owners. Ignorance isn't bliss in this case. It's better to know from the time they incorporate what the plan is. And landowners need to be notified. We worked hard to get HB-1003 passed and can't let it be undone. Of the approximately 15 toll road companies that I've located only the Front Range Toll Road has complied with the notification requirement. The rest are letting their corporations expire rather than send thousands of certified letters. With this new bill they could all come back and be around for decades because it costs them next to nothing. The intentions behind this bill were good but secrecy isn't the answer. Passage of this bill would be a setback for us.
The new bill is at the state legislature site or HERE. It has been assigned to the House Transportation and Energy Committee. This is the committee where HB-1003 took shape last year. I suspect they will have a lot of questions about this bill.
The 2006 entries have been moved here. The 2005 entries have been moved here.