Public Comments

Property Owners’ Input on EMSIP and County Transportation Plan

PHASE III COMMENTS

Note: Some comments are linked to more comprehensive comments. Click on links to read full comment. Some content edited to protect privacy.

Date posted:

2/20/2009

“We intend to send written protest to the Board of Directors of DMEA and Tri-State. Unfortunately we are not in a financial position to be able to hire an attorney to represent us. We expect to be offered a nominal sum for the acquisition of the easements. And our dream of the "quiet and peaceful enjoyment of our land as granted by the warranty deed is shattered.”

Date posted:

2/20/2009

“Hopefully the station won’t be right in the middle of one of my hay fields!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why bother to attend a meeting... They don’t listen to landowners! ...only consultants and big business gets any attention around here...” L

Date posted:

2/20/2009

“Call us old fashioned, and we consider the taking of our land to be theft. And any commissioner who supports this taking is an accessory to theft. Is your property still in the proposed alignment? Kent and Shelby did not give you accurate information last December. Based on the attendance at the public hearing before the planning commission on Jan 22, there is a good deal of opposition to the latest proposal. We know many of these people as neighbors.”

County Engineer, Brian Wilson, stated in the “Beltway Article” in the Montrose Daily Press special section on Growth, that, “ There are individuals who will be injured -- (by the Beltway) there’s no way around it. And there will be individuals who get blessed with new opportunities. I don’t know that there is as solution in which no one is injured and no one is blessed.” The solution, Mr. Wilson is you treat people fairly and you pay them fairly for their land if you are going to render it unusable or unfit for the highest and best use. Mr. Wilson goes on to state, “If as a community we’re going to invest millions of dollars into a transportation system, we want to make sure we get it right. You can’t have the program happen without leadership. At some time (it will) take direction. The day will be good for some and hard for others. But that day will have to come.” Wilson continued, “But if you’re unwilling to draw a line on a map and declare that that’s the line there’s no beginning point and it’s kind of a chicken and egg thing --- you’ve gotta start some place and this was the starting point. We drew some lines on a map and we’re having public comment and dialogue.”

What Mr. Wilson and Mr. Jensen (Kerwin) fail to acknowledge is the human element in this entire boondoggle (the “Beltway”). If a municipality does not have any money to build a project of this magnitude then the colored lines on the map should be drawn more responsibly, instead of indiscriminately, ultimately messing with peoples lives and livelihoods. Human beings are being hurt by the preposterous beltway idea and by the immoral tactics of the City and County of Montrose officials. We spoke with an elderly couple at a recent Comprehensive Plan meeting who are so worried about the roadway (and power lines) that are proposed to go through their subdivision that they are trying to sell their house. This is a couple in their golden years, who should be able to live in peace in the home and community they have chosen. Instead, City and County officials are keeping them in a state of turmoil, worrying about something for which there is no money to build and which the City consultants now have said has "fallen off" of the table in terms of planning. Similarly, our 81-year-old father, a WW II Veteran, is in a state of turmoil, wondering if he is going to lose the place he chose to live out the remainder of his life. Furthermore, the dialogue is non-existent. It seems to be a one-way conversation. We were NEVER officially informed that the proposed “colored lines on a map” would destroy our entire 45-acre farm, taking out the barn and the house that our father lives in. A land-owner/developer we know in Montrose alerted us to the presence of this “map” on the Montrose County web site a couple of years ago. Interestingly, this “map” is no longer available on the County web site. See full comments in letter to Montrose Daily Press

The bright side is they seem to be listening, as they have already pushed much of the line off private property. The alternate that removes the line from your property is also the most direct, so I would think that would be their choice due to the cost savings. The BLM was open to the idea of running behind Flat Top, which would make N-5a the obvious choice beyond that, sparing your property.

Thanks again for leading this fight. Your efforts are having an impact, and I have faith that you will share in the results!

I am pleasantly surprised to see that DMEA/Tri-State has eliminated much of the line extension that crosses private property, and instead has proposed new routing on public land. While I applaud your sensitivity to landowners concerns, I would like to encourage you to take the final step, and chose from the proposed alterative routes those that create the least impact to private property.

I am not intimately familiar with the southern portion of the line, so I will limit my specific recommendations to the northern portion. I strongly support the N-4a and N-5a alternates, which are primarily on public land, and strongly oppose the N-3b, N-4c, N-4d portions, which traverse and impact private property. I also strongly support the N-5b section, which crosses an area already heavily impacted by Off Road enthusiasts.

“We found out yesterday from the BLM office that on June 12, 2006, Tri-State filed a permit application for the portion of the BLM Utility corridor that is being utilized in the initial proposal. This is a full nine months before the public was notified of the open house and the beginning of the comment period, which you well recall was only six weeks long!”

PHASE I COMMENTS

A note of interest, I was looking back at some beltway info I had from two years ago including public comment. The DMEA's comment re the beltway read "...we ask that consideration be given to include electrical easements all along the beltway for electrical transmission service-whenever its final location is selected." That sounds to me

like DMEA doesn't care about location as long as they get an easement. Since they apparently already have an easement on the BLM, this seems to solve their problem. Especially if they need the lines "yesterday." Obviously, the bully in the schoolyard has gotten to them since that comment.

. . . “the state already has a $4 million shortfall for road and bridge repair and that there's no way a sales tax will pay for a beltway” . . . Thanks for the update. I don't want to jump the gun, but your meeting with DMEA sounded hopeful. This whole thing is being run ala Chicago politics. ie: do something first and deal with consequences later. We plan to be back in Montrose for the comp. plan meeting on the 24th. Did you happen to catch Kerwin Jensen on npr over the weekend? He was talking about the future beltway (and bike path) and how it will be funded with a sales tax increase (which has to be voted on, by the way). Someone else was on, (I didn't catch the name) who said the state already has a $4 million shortfall for road and bridge repair and that there's no way a sales tax will pay for a beltway, especially when other essential services are needed in Montrose, like policemen.

Thanks for the update. I thought of you last week when the Montrose “Mess” (aka Press) ran the article on “this”... I never rec’d any survey in April and wonder how many other rural Montrosians did and/or didn’t. I would guess that they mailed it to Olathe instead of Montrose. Whatever the case, I did not receive a survey and thus was unable to complete it! Just venting here as I know you will understand my frustration and hesitancy to trust or even attempt to be heard by our (County Commissioners) and their representatives.

Thank you for the update. It is good to know we might have some support with the DMEA board. Keep us in loop with the meeting schedules, and we will do our best to attend. Thank you again for all of your hard work and for hosting the meeting!

DMEA is only half the problem, the other half is the County specifically the county land use and engineering dept. These people are manipulating DMEA as much as possible to run interference for the arterial road way from 50 north to 550 south.

Hi! We heartily support your efforts since we are also directly in the path of the proposed transmission line if it follows the proposed

"beltway" (another ill-conceived plan). Let us know what else we can do. The more voices we have, the better.

I have been out of the country and just returned and received your emails. Great job on the website! All five of us sent letters of opposition to DMEA as well. Hopefully they listen and re-route the line.