Since the birth of the republic, two principles have been a part of the American experience: providing for the common defense; and, respecting private property rights. On the high plains of Colorado, those two principles are now in conflict.
The U.S. Army wants to acquire 418,000 acres of private ranchland near the New Mexico border in order to increase the size of an existing training area that it says will enable Army units to better prepare for future conflicts in that kind of rugged terrain. Many of the ranchers whose land is targeted in that 418,000 acre parcel want to continue to work their land rather than sell it to the federal government.
Is approving the Army's acquisition of that land -- and thereby promoting readiness in support of providing for the common defense, more important than respecting the property rights of ranchers, some of whose families have owned that land since the 1870's? Why or why not? What messages are likely to resonate with legislators who will make that decision?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110300333.html?sub=AR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In this particular situation, I find it more important to respect the property rights of the ranchers.
I understand the importance of providing for the common defense, but this situation heavily affects one sector of the Colorado community without a due cause -- ranchers. It is imperative that the ranchers mobilize a voice and kill the legislation.
The biggest proponents of this land acquisition are business leaders who are looking to make the state a military hub and strengthen the local economy. However, these business leaders should have little leverage in this situation -- we’re not talking about their land.
The messages that are most likely to resonate with the legislators are the following:
1) Timing. I think it is key to acknowledge a timeline of the situation. By 2011, the federal government wants an additional five million acres of land for military training. Further, the Army says it will take years to develop this specific lot; the preliminary stages include planning and approval on environmental, social, economic, military and political grounds. As a legislator, can you rationalize making ranchers sell their land to the government when there is so much that can go wrong? What if the initiative is scrapped three years down the line?
If the Colorado legislators agree to the acquisition, they will not only lose support and credibility with the ranchers, but their decision will serve as a landmark for future development initiatives.
2) Past experiences. Legislators should look to 1982. In a similar situation where ranchers reluctantly gave up their land, business leaders were expecting a jump in the economy. The opposite happened.
3) Money. As a legislator, I find it discerning that the government would displace my constituents and fail to pay them top dollar for their land, some of which has been in their family since the 1870s. I would also look at the government’s plan for contracts. Are they planning to bid on national contracts or would the military base be supported by Colorado industries?
There are several components that need to be further analyzed by legislators. In the end, I would side with the ranchers.
I agree w/ Arden on all fronts, and would add that an argument can also be made that a lot of tax dollars are being taken off the public rolls – a consequence that could affect schools and hospitals, as the article noted. What is the condition of education and health care in that region of the state? In the state overall?
I think a strong argument needs to be made about the lack of answers from the Pentagon and the historical outcome of the last land grab – the past is the best predictor of the future – and the Pentagon here doesn’t have a lot of legs to stand on.
Trout out some scrapbooks and family trees to legislators and let them hear a personal story of land that has been in a family’s history for generations.
Providing for the common defense is important and the goals of good-intentioned legislators to make Colorado a hub of the defense industry is smart – but not at the expense of legal homeowners.
While I would normally be more inclined to support the needs of the military, it seems to me that in this case, the army should/can probably find land somewhere else.
First, some of these people have sold their land due to a previous expansion. I think that having your land seized (bought) twice is excessive. I don't know how you put a limit on how many times something like that can happen before you take a stand, but twice seems like too much.
Second, the president of military affairs commitee even said himself that other states would be all too willing to accept the troops and the business. If that's truly the case, I think the matter dies there. "Fine, you have some other place you can conduct your manuevers and house the troops, I recommend you go there, because we really don't want to leave...again."
And that could be the message. "The military is nitpicking where they want to conduct these manuevers without considering the concerns of the people who own the land" That could be a message.
Patriotism isn't even something that should be brought up in this case. The fact that someone has to support the military and everything it does to be patriotic is ridiculous.
I can also recognize the need for the military to adapt to future needs. The purpose of BRAC in 2005 was to determine how best the military could realign its bases to future wars. Obviously this meant a need for more bases with conditions similar to those in the middle east. That being said, I don't believe this particular case is the only one we'll hear about. However, in this case, if there is other land that this base can use that will not displace people, then use that land.
In general terms, I would have to say yes, that national security would under general circumstances take precedence over individual property rights. There are many questions that need to be asked.
What are the specifics of this situation?
Have all options been considered to satisfy the needs of all stakeholders involved?
Has the U.S. Army considered other options?
Have local government officials considered other options?
Why is this huge parcel of land so important to the U.S. Army?
If all of these questions have been addressed and if all other concerns have been given proper consideration and if this proposed land deal is still the best option, then it should proceed.
The messages here are clear:
Would the approval of this deal be selling out local heritage and history?
Would this deal be good for the national interest?
Would this land deal increase local revenues and create permanent jobs?
Would this deal be good for the economy?
There is no question that local business interests want approval for this deal. It would create local jobs, it would increase government and private sector revenues. Legislators will need to consider the best interests of the land owners versus the interests of the state, business community and their own personal political agendas.
When it comes to the federal government wanting private land, eminent domain laws ensure the government will win out. In time that will likely be the case here. In this situation I have to admit that it seems a bit excessive. Many of these ranchers were forced to give up portions of their lands before in a similar situation. When something like this happens more than once to the same group of people you have to think there is some excess happening.
Messages here should focus on the economic impacts, property rights, and patriotism. Ranchers and their supporters need to show that the last time this happened, there were minimal economic benefits and the area affected suffered. Likewise, it might be beneficial for several states to bid for the new military training facility. Surely a suitable site can be found in Colorado or another state that is beneficial to both parties. Personal family stories could go a long way in defending the property rights. Also the ranchers who had to give up their lands before should emphasize the excesses of them doing it again. It should also be noted that many of these ranchers served their country in the military and their desire to keep their lands has nothing do with them being unpatriotic.
Lawmakers would be wise to side with the ranchers in this situation. Ranching is a big part of the Colorado economy and if lawmakers lose the support of the ranchers they will face problems in the upcoming elections.
When it comes to the federal government wanting private land, eminent domain laws ensure the government will win out. In time that will likely be the case here. In this situation I have to admit that it seems a bit excessive. Many of these ranchers were forced to give up portions of their lands before in a similar situation. When something like this happens more than once to the same group of people you have to think there is some excess happening.
Messages here should focus on the economic impacts, property rights, and patriotism. Ranchers and their supporters need to show that the last time this happened, there were minimal economic benefits and the area affected suffered. Likewise, it might be beneficial for several states to bid for the new military training facility. Surely a suitable site can be found in Colorado or another state that is beneficial to both parties. Personal family stories could go a long way in defending the property rights. Also the ranchers who had to give up their lands before should emphasize the excesses of them doing it again. It should also be noted that many of these ranchers served their country in the military and their desire to keep their lands has nothing do with them being unpatriotic.
Lawmakers would be wise to side with the ranchers in this situation. Ranching is a big part of the Colorado economy and if lawmakers lose the support of the ranchers they will face problems in the upcoming elections.
This country, first and foremost, was founded on the principle of individual rights. In authoring the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers took great care to protect against government infringement upon civil liberties. The idea that the Federal Government could force families to sell their land for military use seems to fly in the face of that core principle.
With its ill-conceived war in Iraq, the Bush Administration has succeeded only in destroying international goodwill toward the U.S. and stretching our military perilously thin. During that time, military spending has reached alarming levels, creating a previously unthinkable budget deficit that will likely take decades, if not generations to balance. Now, that same military wants to use the power of eminent domain to force American citizens who are helping pay for their war off of their family land. That legislators would go so far as to use the now tired guise of "patriotism" to mask yet another assault on the rights of their constituents is shameful, though not unexpected.
Do your best Bill O'Reilly impersonation and call me an America-hating liberal, but the military commands far more resources than should be necessary under normal circumstances (i.e. - when we have not made the grave mistake of attacking a nation that posed no real threat to us and thereby greatly increased both the number and resolve of our enemies). That the military should be rewarded at the further expense of U.S. citizens for the incompetence and deceit of the Bush Administration is a concept I find not only offensive, but un-American.
While providing for the common defense is essential, so is protecting the rights of landowners.
Several people quoted in the article seemed to believe that the new military investment would be less of an economic benefit to the community than maintaining the ranches that are currently there.
Even if the expanded site would bring some economic benefit to the community, it would take away the security of landownership which is a bedrock principle of this country. The landowners would essentially be selling a solid principle of private landownership for a vague concept of domestic security through the training of soldiers for a diffuse international war.
Surely, there is another location in the U.S. that would allow for similar training conditions. This option should be explored.
If not, and the Army is ultimately allowed to purchase the land from these ranchers, they should have to offer fair market value-eminent domain acquisition should not be an option.
Surprisingly, the article quotes two state officials, both Democrats, who support the Army's effort to expand its Pinon Canyon Maneuever site. While these state politicians are likely trying to to appear solid on defense (and promote the economy, with that side of the argument) they should be aware that their part of the country has long had a Libertarian bent and that intrusion on private property rights is often viewed very negatively.
The coalition of ranchers that developed out of the proposed expansion of the site should lobby these politicians hard and argue that they are risking political abandonment for negating some of the fundamental principles of the West.
Post a Comment