To the men and women of the Armed Forces: Thank you for your service, and thank you for having the courage to move to the sound of the guns for your country. Further, the Army’s own study (“Fort Carson and Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site Community Research,” July 2008) confirms that the ranchers and farmers of southeast Colorado also thank you and understand the importance of training for combat. This is not about you.

Scott McInnis is on the wrong side of western values with his position on Piñon Canyon. His support for turning more of Colorado land into a large federal live-fire range solely on the basis of “jobs, jobs, jobs” is misguided, and quite frankly, troubling.

The incremental job impact of expanding the training site is not clear. The Army is committed to the Fort Carson community, and will continue to be an important part of the Colorado Springs economy.  What is less clear is the economic benefit to Piñon Canyon ranchers and farmers, 100 miles away from where the soldiers live. Creating jobs in one part of the state at the expense of another is not the way forward.

The 2008 study suggests the right path forward. Rather than seizing ranchers’ land (another “government grab”), the Army should address the concerns of those who will be directly impacted by the expansion.  87 percent of residents are concerned about the loss of local water rights, and 83 percent are worried about unemployment (and that was a year ago).

68 percent support the Army’s right to buy and sell land in the open market, but 53 percent of respondents say they don’t have enough information to evaluate whether the expansion is necessary, what other options have been considered, and to determine whether to sell or not to sell.

Scott McInnis should focus on addressing these concerns so that individuals can make their own choice. Instead, he has dismissed concerns over property rights, which are critical to our freedom, by saying that the government “is no longer threatening eminent domain in the Piñon Canyon expansion.”

There are two problems with this statement. First, past performance is often the best indication of future performance. The federal government condemned the land and used eminent domain to create the current maneuver site, and has refused to indicate that it will not, in the end, do so again. Second, threats from the federal government are never in the best interest of Colorado citizens. This should have triggered a re-evaluation of Congressman McInnis’ position, but did not.

This issue gives cause for concern and interesting insight into the gubernatorial candidate’s priorities and mind-set.

REP. STEVE KING
House District 54
Grand Junction

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 at 5:21 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.