Claudette Konola
 
There is a bill making its way through the legislative process in Denver that would regulate how commercial river rafters can do business. The representative from House District 54 has sided with a developer from Texas who wants to fence off part of the Taylor River so that owners of the 35 custom homes he wants to build can enjoy fly fishing from their private decks.

Steve King voted against moving the bill out of committee and on to the floor of the House. He was one of three Republicans, to vote no. The single remaining Republican and all Democrats voted yes. I heard Steve King on TV last night saying that he wanted to support these small businesses, but that the way the bill is written would amount to a taking. (See yesterday’s blog.)

So, Mr. King, when a barge floats down the Mississippi River and passes through sections of the river that are privately owned, is that a taking? Should a landowner be allowed to put up a toll gate on the Mississippi River so that they can be justly compensated for their taking? River rafting attracts 500,000 visitors to our state annually, and generates $140-million in revenue, and employs some of our neighbors.

It is time for some common sense from our Representative.  During the hearing, Representatives heard from small rafting companies who said their livelihoods are threatened because their right to float down rivers in Colorado is not clearly defined. It is clearly defined in most Western states, including neighboring Wyoming and Utah. Let’s define how the river can be used by river rafters. This bill is good for Colorado and all communities that have rivers running through them.

Homework:

The point of view of river rafters: http://www.coloradorafting.net/mirror/tag/colorado-rafting/

The point of view of fly fishermen: http://privatewaterflyfishing.com/uncategorized/private-water-fly-fishing-vs-rafters/

Senator Bennet has joined forces with Senator Feingold to return “power to the people” in US elections. Sign his petition at the following link.

http://action.bennetforcolorado.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=594&track=RFWeb
 
 
One of the questions posed to candidates in the forum-to-which-I-was-not-invited was how they felt about the Kelo Decision. This was a case in the US Supreme Court related to land takings, or eminent domain. It relates to the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, sometimes called the Taking Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

The decision was 5 to 4, that the city of New London could use eminent domain to force property owners to sell their land to the city so that an economic development project could move forward. I imagine it is somewhat relevant to the House District 54 election, since the 29 Road improvements will involve some landowners ceding portions of their front lawn to the project. Although in the Kelo Decision, there was one additional twist that is not present in the 29 Road improvements—the city of New London used eminent domain for the benefit of an economic development entity that was not the city per se.

There was a lot of public consternation that the Kelo decision would lead to large corporations gaining an advantage over individual homeowners or local communities. As a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws to prohibit land takings for economic development except when the purpose of the development was to eliminate blight.

What is my opinion of the decision? Government is here to protect “we the people,” not “we the corporations.” This isn’t the first time that the US Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in a controversial decision, and it isn’t even the most egregious display of corporate favoritism. I’d much rather discuss Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Homework:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0202/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-finance-ruling-just-the-facts

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_153f0ece-14d4-11df-b566-001cc4c03286.html

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/32_million_state_grant_to_help

http://www.gjcity.org/CityDeptWebPages/PublicWorksAndUtilities/RiversideParkway/PDF/29RdPDF/CorrectedBenefitCostAnalysis.pdf

 http://www.rothgerber.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=639