PCEOC

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition

Landowner/School Bill passes House Committee

AND A BIG THANKS TO THE GREAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE that attended the hearing yesterday in Denver.

Another Kudos for our kids from Branson, Hoehne and Kim along with teachers as well as multiple others that testified.

It now goes to the House floor for debate (perhaps next week) and if it passes muster there too it will go to a Senate committee for another hearing process.

It is important to note that the two 'no' votes are supporters of the expansion of PCMS.

It should also be brought up that the Attorney General himself came to the hearing at the last part of the testimony section and stated "the position letter in you packets (speaking to the Committee) is NOT from the AG, but is a personal opinion of one person in the AGs office". He went on to say that he felt the bill "is constitutional" and that he would "enforce it should it pass".

That eliminated any doubt about constitutionality so our legislators shouldn't try to hide behind that suggestion, as Rep Labuda and Rep Looper did.

_________________________________________________________________________________
one of the many articles is below:

Thursday, April 02, 2009

House to debate Pinon Canyon legislation

Sal Pace

Marsha Looper

Measure clears committee although some lawmakers question the bill's constitutionality.

By CHARLES ASHBY
CHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU

April 01, 2009 11:46 pm

DENVER - A bill designed to block the Army's planned expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site cleared a House committee on Wednesday.

The measure, introduced by Democratic Reps. Sal Pace of Pueblo and Wes McKinley of Walsh, would block the State Board of Land Commissioners from selling or leasing lands to the federal government for the purpose of expanding the 238,000-acre training site.

The board controls thousands of acres dotted around the state. Revenue received from mining and grazing rights is used to fund the state's schools.

"The state of Colorado should take a proactive stance to protect the private property rights of farmers and ranchers in Southeastern Colorado," Pace said. "Prohibiting the sale of the school lands will prevent any further unwanted eminent domain grab of private lands, which would destroy an important, treasured way of life."

Some lawmakers who opposed the bill, however, questioned the constitutionality of the measure, pointing to a memo written by Ed Hamrick, senior assistant attorney general for natural resources and environment.

In his memo, Hamrick said Amendment 16, which voters approved in 1996, restricted the General Assembly's ability to limit the board's authority to manage those lands.

"I still have concerns about the constitutionality of the bill," said Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan. "As I sit here today, I am still wrestling with several sections of the Colorado Constitution in regards to the restrictions that we put on state land boards."

Pace distributed a conflicting memo by the Legislature's own legal staff, which said the Legislature may impose whatever restrictions on the board as it wants.

"Because the board must act 'subject to such terms and conditions consistent therewith as may be prescribed by law,' the General Assembly has the authority to regulate the activities of the board," the memo reads. "The replacement of the word 'regulations' with the phrase 'terms and conditions' in Amendment 16 was an immaterial change that cannot be read to have decreased the power of the General Assembly to statutorily regulate the board's activities."

Denver attorney Mark Grueskin also told the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee, which approved the bill on an 11-2 vote, said a recent Colorado Supreme Court decision made it clear that any measure approved by the Legislature is presumed to be constitutional.

Anyone who challenges such a measure would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard akin to a district attorney prosecuting a murder case, that a new law was unconstitutional, Grueskin said.

"The provision under which the General Assembly is authorized to act allows the state board to have broad authority subject to such terms and conditions consistent therewith as may be prescribed by law," he said. " 'Prescribed by law' says it's the General Assembly's job. The burden to challenge that would be a mighty one."

The measure heads to the full House for more debate.

PCEOC

www.pinoncanyon.com

PCEOC

www.pinoncanyon.com

House to debate Pinon Canyon legislation

Measure clears committee although some lawmakers question the bill's constitutionality.

By CHARLES ASHBY CHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU

By CHARLES ASHBY
CHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU