RiverSage the ‘Proper’ Way to Develop Land
by Gus JarvisAug 20, 2009
Posted by: Erin Eddy
www.ridgwayland.com
LAY OF THE LAND – Lot 3 in the first phase of the RiverSage sits next to cottonwoods that line the Uncompahgre River. It also has magnificent views of the Sneffels and Cimarron mountain ranges. (Photos by Gus Jarvis)
slideshow
slideshow Phase One Lots Now Available
RIDGWAY – Six years since the inception of the RiverSage subdivision, two miles north of Ridgway near the banks of the Uncompahgre River, seven two-acre home sites are now available for purchase. The sites represent the first phase of the development and provide future residents clear views of the Sneffels and Cimarron mountain ranges as well as access to over 100 acres of surrounding open space and the adjacent 60-acre Dennis Weaver Memorial Park.
The project’s developer Rick Weaver, who has been busy overseeing road paving at the subdivision, said that the process to create and annex the subdivision with the Town of Ridgway was a lengthy, but ultimately is a “win-win” development for potential lot owners as well as the those who will enjoy the 60-acre park. The development also encompasses the philosophy of Weaver’s late father, actor and environmentalist Dennis Weaver.
“We really wanted to preserve the river corridor, wetlands and wildlife habitat,” Weaver said in an interview last week. “We tried to keep his vision in approaching this project. The only way we could do this is donate land and develop just enough lots to make it financially feasible. The town got a 60-acre park and we got the lots we needed. Everybody wins with this project.”
Lots in the first phase of the subdivision are priced to sell from $289,000. With its location on the outskirts of Ridgway and within one hour’s drive of Telluride, the subdivision is perfect for those who want to be surrounded by San Juan Mountain beauty but not too far from the conveniences of town.
“What is really great about it is you get a rural country, private feel but you are only four minutes from town,” Weaver said. “You are also only four minutes from town if you want to ride your bike on the path. People can even go down to the [Ridgway] State Park without even getting into a car.”
The entire RiverSage subdivision is broken up into three phases and will, when it is complete, have just 20 lots on 115 acres of land.
“There is a lot of open space out there and a lot of great mountain views with no homes in front of another,” Weaver said.
In keeping with his father’s vision, Weaver said the subdivision will be environmentally sensitive and wildlife friendly. Guidelines in place ensure that each home is not only elegantly designed but energy efficient and economical.
“One of the things that we are excited to do is have a green development,” he said. “We have instituted voluntary green building codes that are based loosely on codes that are in effect in Telluride and in Gunnison. Most of it involves good building practices. We felt it is a worthwhile thing to do and we are proud of the fact we have taken those voluntary steps. I think it is absolutely necessary to worry about conservation.”
RiverSage is ideal for those who regularly get outside for recreation and exercise. For mountain bikers, the Eagle Hill loop is adjacent to the development, and for the angler, the fly-fishing on the nearby Uncompahgre River is “great,” according to Weaver.
“We have had a lot of compliments on the [Dennis Weaver Memorial] Park and its trail system,” he said. “This project is all about preserving the river corridor and open space while having a limited density and limited visual impact project that includes green building. It is something that is conscious of our environmental needs as well as conservation needs and we think it is the proper way to develop a piece of land.”
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Ouray Real Estate and Land Use Issues
Commissioners to Address Mining Claim Issues With Current Regulations
by Gus Jarvis Aug 13, 2009
Posted by Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com and www.ridgwayland.com
OURAY – Instead of drafting an entire new section to the county’s Land Use Code to regulate residential development on patented mining claims, the Ouray Board of County Commissioners on Monday generally agreed that they would schedule series of work sessions that would be dedicated to specific concerns surrounding residential development on mining claims in hopes of better enforcing or tweaking existing codes.
Monday’s discussion was the first opportunity for the commissioners to formally discuss what they had heard at a July 27 forum held to discuss possible new regulations on the development of mining claims, attended by close to 200 county residents. It was apparent at the meeting that the community is sharply divided over the need for regulating residential development on mining claims.
While County Commissioner Keith Meinert said he thought that he and his fellow commissioners had clearly defined their concerns and objectives when they first started the process of drafting new regulations, he agreed that the commissioners should specifically outline why they are concerned about residential development on mining claims.
“I think the objectives and concerns still exist,” Meinert said. “I want to continue to pursue this to achieve clear cut objectives and address clear cut concerns and maybe we need to spend some time enumerating exactly what those concerns and objectives are.”
Meinert continued by saying that there is a possibility of addressing those concerns with existing site development permit regulations and visual impact regulations.
“The possibility of achieving those objectives and concerns by better enforcement and better tweaking of existing regulations is something we need to explore rather than the new section of code, which we had thrown out as a discussion vehicle for the planning commission.”
The commissioners set up a list of “bite sized” concerns that need to be addressed in future work sessions. First, they agreed to work with County Assessor Susie Mayfield to address the value that mining claims are assessed. Currently mining claims are generally valued by the assessor at $1,000 per acre, rather than the value assigned to other categories of vacant land in the county. “One issue that, to me, stood out is this taxation issue,” Commissioner Heidi Albritton said. “The valuation of mining clams is a touchy topic and a bit of a Pandora’s box. We need to have a discussion on how to deal with that.” Albritton added that she understood that it would be an expensive and lengthy process to reassess each mining claim.
Commissioner Lynn Padgett suggested that the first step the county could take is a mass appraisal system of mining clams and that the county look to the U.S. Forest Service as a partner in coming up with a means to survey the mining claims so the county can have “an accurate picture of where the parcels are.”
Albritton cautioned her fellow commissioners that if the valuations of those properties were to be changed, the board would first need to be completely educated on how the change would affect property owners.
“We also need to be cognizant of the impact to those people who have owned those properties and don’t plan to build on them,” Albritton said. “I don’t think we have a choice in the matter but there are going to be ramifications and it will affect people in a significant way. It could be the difference of people hanging on to [a mining claim] or putting it on the market.”
The commissioners also said they still had not heard concerns from residents about the visual impacts of unregulated residential development on mining claims and agreed that the current visual impact regulations need to be addresses so they can be better enforced and possibly broadened to more areas. Meinert said their were “obvious shortcomings” with the visual impact code and that it is currently “unworkable and is unenforceable.
“It allows a kind of discretion by staff that puts staff in a difficult position,” Meinert said. “I think we need to put a lot more thought into the visual impact code.”
Albritton agreed by suggesting that the commissioners schedule “a decent amount of time to workshop our visual impact regulations. We all know there are issues with that section of code and then also have simultaneous discussions about expanding the visual impact corridors.”
Continuing on, the commissioners agreed that road grade issue needs to be addressed as well. Meinert suggested that there be, in the LUC, a variance process to allow for road grades above 12 percent.
“I think there needs to be a variance process and it needs to recognize that some need to be more than 12 percent,” Meinert said. “The other issue is the need for a permitting process before any blade is put to the earth. That would potentially address some of the issues in getting the right kind of engineering.”
He added that the “biggest stumbling block” to development in mining claims areas is they are up private roads.
“Our regulations were intended in keeping those primitive,” he said. “I am not trying to resolve the issue here but it is another area to be addressed.”
Along with that, Meinert said the commissioners need to look into whether or not the county will require owners who develop off primitive roads to sign a waiver that would take away the county’s liability in providing emergency services.
“Something that clearly forces them to recognize that what they are doing in that location may have consequences to them,” Meinert said. Padgett added that she is concerned with what responsibility the county has in taking care of wildfires around those mining claims.
The commissioners directed County Attorney Mary Deganhart to draft a resolution that would specifically outline what the commissioners intend to work on in upcoming work sessions. It was unclear at Monday’s meeting what role the Ouray County Planning Commission would play in each of the work sessions, but the commission would be invited to all of them.
by Gus Jarvis Aug 13, 2009
Posted by Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com and www.ridgwayland.com
OURAY – Instead of drafting an entire new section to the county’s Land Use Code to regulate residential development on patented mining claims, the Ouray Board of County Commissioners on Monday generally agreed that they would schedule series of work sessions that would be dedicated to specific concerns surrounding residential development on mining claims in hopes of better enforcing or tweaking existing codes.
Monday’s discussion was the first opportunity for the commissioners to formally discuss what they had heard at a July 27 forum held to discuss possible new regulations on the development of mining claims, attended by close to 200 county residents. It was apparent at the meeting that the community is sharply divided over the need for regulating residential development on mining claims.
While County Commissioner Keith Meinert said he thought that he and his fellow commissioners had clearly defined their concerns and objectives when they first started the process of drafting new regulations, he agreed that the commissioners should specifically outline why they are concerned about residential development on mining claims.
“I think the objectives and concerns still exist,” Meinert said. “I want to continue to pursue this to achieve clear cut objectives and address clear cut concerns and maybe we need to spend some time enumerating exactly what those concerns and objectives are.”
Meinert continued by saying that there is a possibility of addressing those concerns with existing site development permit regulations and visual impact regulations.
“The possibility of achieving those objectives and concerns by better enforcement and better tweaking of existing regulations is something we need to explore rather than the new section of code, which we had thrown out as a discussion vehicle for the planning commission.”
The commissioners set up a list of “bite sized” concerns that need to be addressed in future work sessions. First, they agreed to work with County Assessor Susie Mayfield to address the value that mining claims are assessed. Currently mining claims are generally valued by the assessor at $1,000 per acre, rather than the value assigned to other categories of vacant land in the county. “One issue that, to me, stood out is this taxation issue,” Commissioner Heidi Albritton said. “The valuation of mining clams is a touchy topic and a bit of a Pandora’s box. We need to have a discussion on how to deal with that.” Albritton added that she understood that it would be an expensive and lengthy process to reassess each mining claim.
Commissioner Lynn Padgett suggested that the first step the county could take is a mass appraisal system of mining clams and that the county look to the U.S. Forest Service as a partner in coming up with a means to survey the mining claims so the county can have “an accurate picture of where the parcels are.”
Albritton cautioned her fellow commissioners that if the valuations of those properties were to be changed, the board would first need to be completely educated on how the change would affect property owners.
“We also need to be cognizant of the impact to those people who have owned those properties and don’t plan to build on them,” Albritton said. “I don’t think we have a choice in the matter but there are going to be ramifications and it will affect people in a significant way. It could be the difference of people hanging on to [a mining claim] or putting it on the market.”
The commissioners also said they still had not heard concerns from residents about the visual impacts of unregulated residential development on mining claims and agreed that the current visual impact regulations need to be addresses so they can be better enforced and possibly broadened to more areas. Meinert said their were “obvious shortcomings” with the visual impact code and that it is currently “unworkable and is unenforceable.
“It allows a kind of discretion by staff that puts staff in a difficult position,” Meinert said. “I think we need to put a lot more thought into the visual impact code.”
Albritton agreed by suggesting that the commissioners schedule “a decent amount of time to workshop our visual impact regulations. We all know there are issues with that section of code and then also have simultaneous discussions about expanding the visual impact corridors.”
Continuing on, the commissioners agreed that road grade issue needs to be addressed as well. Meinert suggested that there be, in the LUC, a variance process to allow for road grades above 12 percent.
“I think there needs to be a variance process and it needs to recognize that some need to be more than 12 percent,” Meinert said. “The other issue is the need for a permitting process before any blade is put to the earth. That would potentially address some of the issues in getting the right kind of engineering.”
He added that the “biggest stumbling block” to development in mining claims areas is they are up private roads.
“Our regulations were intended in keeping those primitive,” he said. “I am not trying to resolve the issue here but it is another area to be addressed.”
Along with that, Meinert said the commissioners need to look into whether or not the county will require owners who develop off primitive roads to sign a waiver that would take away the county’s liability in providing emergency services.
“Something that clearly forces them to recognize that what they are doing in that location may have consequences to them,” Meinert said. Padgett added that she is concerned with what responsibility the county has in taking care of wildfires around those mining claims.
The commissioners directed County Attorney Mary Deganhart to draft a resolution that would specifically outline what the commissioners intend to work on in upcoming work sessions. It was unclear at Monday’s meeting what role the Ouray County Planning Commission would play in each of the work sessions, but the commission would be invited to all of them.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Ouray Real Estate Land Use Issues
Split continues on mine claims regs
Written by: Patrick Davarn 07.AUG.09
Posted by: Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com
Unscheduled discussion on the current hot-button topic of residential development on mining claims dominated an otherwise light agenda for the Board of County Commissioners.
Yet more discussion, albeit this time scheduled, takes place during a work session on Aug. 10 between the BOCC and the Ouray County Planning Commission (OCPC).
Last Monday, OCPC member Ken Lipton came before the BOCC during its informal Call to the Public to read a statement of timelines that included summaries of directives by the BOCC and meetings and work sessions since the process began in May 2008.
“The question as to whether or not a new section to the code should be written was already decided by the BOCC and earlier agreed to by the PC and this should not be negated by self-interested parties or ideology or fear of angering a portion of the community that holds unrealistic views on property rights or the county’s right to regulate land use,” said Lipton from a portion of his document.
According to a news report in the July 31 Plaindealer, nearly 200 citizens packed the county courthouse two days earlier to register their views on the issue of restrictions and regulations for residential development on mining claims. Opinions were as diverse as the backgrounds of those in attendance; some owned property in the area currently defined as the South Alpine Zone, some did not.
Commissioner Keith Meinert said at Monday’s meeting that a news report in last week’s Plaindealer needed clarification. County Attorney Mary Deganhart did not write or propose regulations for that zone. “We need to be careful in the way this is portrayed to the public,” said Meinert. “I want to dispel completely (any belief) that such work is driven by any individual on the staff. The county attorney is working at the instruction of the board.”
Meinert said he agreed with Lipton that there needs to be a better understanding between the BOCC and the Planning Commission.
BOCC Chairman Heidi Albritton said the county’s six-month moratorium on mining claims development was intended to allow time for discussion and consideration of specific regulations; but the timetable was not realistic. “We have a large demographic interested in the issue,” said Albritton. “If there are ways to work with them, we need to do that and get a consensus, understanding that we are not going to please everyone.”
Ridgway area resident Craig Fetterolf, who served on the county’s Study Group that earlier this year completed its report on two separate analysis on the affects of growth, asked why mining claims are not taxed the same as other buildable residential properties. “It’s unfair to the rest of us who are paying our taxes,” he said.
Meinert said mining claims are being assessed at the proper rate of 29%; there is no special treatment by the Assessor’s Office. Commissioner Lynn Padgett explained that the difference is the land’s valuation. Padgett said the state requires the county to assess all property at market value, but there is simply not enough data on local sales.
Padgett added that while a higher assessment of market value may add to property tax revenues, it may also harm opportunities for the public, such as the Red Mountain Project or the Trust for Public Land, to obtain mining claims. A higher valuation will mean a higher price.
Written by: Patrick Davarn 07.AUG.09
Posted by: Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com
Unscheduled discussion on the current hot-button topic of residential development on mining claims dominated an otherwise light agenda for the Board of County Commissioners.
Yet more discussion, albeit this time scheduled, takes place during a work session on Aug. 10 between the BOCC and the Ouray County Planning Commission (OCPC).
Last Monday, OCPC member Ken Lipton came before the BOCC during its informal Call to the Public to read a statement of timelines that included summaries of directives by the BOCC and meetings and work sessions since the process began in May 2008.
“The question as to whether or not a new section to the code should be written was already decided by the BOCC and earlier agreed to by the PC and this should not be negated by self-interested parties or ideology or fear of angering a portion of the community that holds unrealistic views on property rights or the county’s right to regulate land use,” said Lipton from a portion of his document.
According to a news report in the July 31 Plaindealer, nearly 200 citizens packed the county courthouse two days earlier to register their views on the issue of restrictions and regulations for residential development on mining claims. Opinions were as diverse as the backgrounds of those in attendance; some owned property in the area currently defined as the South Alpine Zone, some did not.
Commissioner Keith Meinert said at Monday’s meeting that a news report in last week’s Plaindealer needed clarification. County Attorney Mary Deganhart did not write or propose regulations for that zone. “We need to be careful in the way this is portrayed to the public,” said Meinert. “I want to dispel completely (any belief) that such work is driven by any individual on the staff. The county attorney is working at the instruction of the board.”
Meinert said he agreed with Lipton that there needs to be a better understanding between the BOCC and the Planning Commission.
BOCC Chairman Heidi Albritton said the county’s six-month moratorium on mining claims development was intended to allow time for discussion and consideration of specific regulations; but the timetable was not realistic. “We have a large demographic interested in the issue,” said Albritton. “If there are ways to work with them, we need to do that and get a consensus, understanding that we are not going to please everyone.”
Ridgway area resident Craig Fetterolf, who served on the county’s Study Group that earlier this year completed its report on two separate analysis on the affects of growth, asked why mining claims are not taxed the same as other buildable residential properties. “It’s unfair to the rest of us who are paying our taxes,” he said.
Meinert said mining claims are being assessed at the proper rate of 29%; there is no special treatment by the Assessor’s Office. Commissioner Lynn Padgett explained that the difference is the land’s valuation. Padgett said the state requires the county to assess all property at market value, but there is simply not enough data on local sales.
Padgett added that while a higher assessment of market value may add to property tax revenues, it may also harm opportunities for the public, such as the Red Mountain Project or the Trust for Public Land, to obtain mining claims. A higher valuation will mean a higher price.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Ouray Land Use
Four groups have stake in high-country issues
Posted by Erin Eddy: www.ourayland.com
Having attended the BOCC meeting regarding the Alpine Zone Regulations a number of thoughts come to mind. First and most obviously, the Ouray BOCC is conscientiously performing its duty to the citizens of Ouray County by gathering public thoughts on a difficult and sensitive issue. The issue being one of private property rights versus maintenance of the status quo in regards to potential Alpine Zone development via the mechanics of the “1872 Mining Law.”
First, it must be said that an increase in the potentiality of the regulatory process is a direct result to an increase in population pressure. No matter what the inherent political persuasion of the individuals involved, these conflicts will occur as finite resources, whatever their stripe or color, become contested. The finite resource here is the wildness and beauty of nature.
If this issue were the relatively simple issue of mining and environmental concerns it would be easy for me to come to a conclusion. I agree whole heartedly with underground, hard-rock mining in Ouray County. The environmental concerns due to mining would be dealt with in a responsible 21st-century manner to protect the quality of our exceptional environment and we would start drilling and shooting, period. End of story. As I said at the meeting, I hard-rocked from ’71 to ’79. I’m pro-mining. In my world, mineral and metals are as necessary as sunshine and clean air.
If one’s head is out of the sand today, all it should take is a cursory look at the nation and the world at large to realize that Ouray County would do well to get back into the business of hard-rock mining. That being said, do not misconstrue my words as license to trash our environment. (Also, period. End of story.)
However, the meeting on Monday evening was not of a topic so easily dealt with, so easily worked through. While the topic at hand is a direct corollary of the “1872 Mining Law” it is more complex with several permutations. Listening to the 50 or so speakers, I identified four separate groups utilizing four distinct platforms for projecting their points of view. They are:
1. Environmentalists: Their desire is to maintain the status quo without disruption of the back-country reality such as it exists today.
2. “Old-Time” Ouray County patented mine owners: They are staunch on their use by right of private property as stipulated by the “1872 Mining Law.”
3. Patented claim owners from out of the area: Their interest lies in building their “dream second home” in the mountains. This could be a small, secluded low-impact cabin or a neon-pink trophy home perched out on a cliff for the whole world to see.
4. Land Speculators: The claims are strictly and specifically to be used as ‘spec’ real estate investments to the highest bidders regardless of the impact on the local community or environment. Do not be surprised to see leveraged land trades in this group. Threats to build mega-mansions “or else” will show up in this group. This is the trophy home contingent.
So what do we do? Protection of private property rights is essential to the American way of life. Protecting the magic of the environmental aesthetics for the alpine terrain of Ouray County is also essential to the citizens of Ouray County. It is also essential to those that come to Ouray County to visit here, to look at, and to travel in our mountains.
• Private property rights
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are the words of Thomas Jefferson from our Declaration of Independence. It could be said that Jefferson “borrowed” or was inspired by similar words from John Locke: “Life, liberty or possessions.” (Chapter 11, “The Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government” from “The Extent of the Legislative Power,” 1690.)
It is thought that Jefferson originally penned “Life, liberty and property.” The right and concept of property as a “natural right” of “natural law” was so strong, so fundamental with the founders. However, “property” was changed to “pursuit of happiness” because the founders believed that slaves would be considered as “property” and so the founders purposefully changed “property” to “pursuit of happiness.” The cessation of the abomination of slavery by the founders was an ultimate goal and this explains the substitution of word usage found in the Declaration of Independence.
“First a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property.” (“Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men” in “The Report of the Committees of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting,“ November 22, 1772, Sam Adams and Ben Franklin.)
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
As we see from all of this, “private property” is a very big and serious issue in America. It goes deep into English and Celtic origins. Patented mining claims are private property not to be trifled with lightly.
• The Environmental Aesthetic
To conserve, to preserve, the natural beauty and wildness of Ouray County is a worthy goal. This is a respectful endeavor. The protection of the environment is a sacred duty, as is the protection of private property. I believe those duties are divinely inspired. The perpetuity of the appreciated environment is a belief already well established in Ouray County. It is decades and decades old. When the Europeans first arrived in what is now Ouray County, they “took” it away from those who were before. The land was “taken” at this time in an excellent condition. There has always been someone before; there will always be someone after. We haven’t had a monopoly on ownership of these mountains nor stewardship of them. I would venture that we hold these mountains in a trust for the future.
Once again, the questions come back to us, “What do we do? How do we continue to protect as well as to use the “Alpine Zone?” I have friends that own mining claims. I know that their intent is to respect that land, those mountains. They will build small, low-impact cabins on their patented claims. Some already have. Zoning regulations – legal, also – are an attempt to insure the expression of the will of the people in the use and protection of the land.
Regulations? More regulations? I agree with many at the meeting: we do have way too many! Those that know me know what I think about the barrage of regulations today. Large and potential future growth was alluded to by several people at the BOCC meeting. This is an absolute reality in Ouray County’s future. I do believe that it is with the utmost concern, wisdom and sincerity that all three of the County Commissioners are approaching this situation in the Alpine Zone.
As I said to the commissioners at the end of my two-minute comment period on Monday evening, “Do your job.” This was not said as a command. It was said as a re-enforcement to pursue the sacred duties, the sacred honor that the oath of your office requires and demands of you.
Joe Ryan owns and operates the San Juan Hut Systems out of Ridgway.
Posted by Erin Eddy: www.ourayland.com
Having attended the BOCC meeting regarding the Alpine Zone Regulations a number of thoughts come to mind. First and most obviously, the Ouray BOCC is conscientiously performing its duty to the citizens of Ouray County by gathering public thoughts on a difficult and sensitive issue. The issue being one of private property rights versus maintenance of the status quo in regards to potential Alpine Zone development via the mechanics of the “1872 Mining Law.”
First, it must be said that an increase in the potentiality of the regulatory process is a direct result to an increase in population pressure. No matter what the inherent political persuasion of the individuals involved, these conflicts will occur as finite resources, whatever their stripe or color, become contested. The finite resource here is the wildness and beauty of nature.
If this issue were the relatively simple issue of mining and environmental concerns it would be easy for me to come to a conclusion. I agree whole heartedly with underground, hard-rock mining in Ouray County. The environmental concerns due to mining would be dealt with in a responsible 21st-century manner to protect the quality of our exceptional environment and we would start drilling and shooting, period. End of story. As I said at the meeting, I hard-rocked from ’71 to ’79. I’m pro-mining. In my world, mineral and metals are as necessary as sunshine and clean air.
If one’s head is out of the sand today, all it should take is a cursory look at the nation and the world at large to realize that Ouray County would do well to get back into the business of hard-rock mining. That being said, do not misconstrue my words as license to trash our environment. (Also, period. End of story.)
However, the meeting on Monday evening was not of a topic so easily dealt with, so easily worked through. While the topic at hand is a direct corollary of the “1872 Mining Law” it is more complex with several permutations. Listening to the 50 or so speakers, I identified four separate groups utilizing four distinct platforms for projecting their points of view. They are:
1. Environmentalists: Their desire is to maintain the status quo without disruption of the back-country reality such as it exists today.
2. “Old-Time” Ouray County patented mine owners: They are staunch on their use by right of private property as stipulated by the “1872 Mining Law.”
3. Patented claim owners from out of the area: Their interest lies in building their “dream second home” in the mountains. This could be a small, secluded low-impact cabin or a neon-pink trophy home perched out on a cliff for the whole world to see.
4. Land Speculators: The claims are strictly and specifically to be used as ‘spec’ real estate investments to the highest bidders regardless of the impact on the local community or environment. Do not be surprised to see leveraged land trades in this group. Threats to build mega-mansions “or else” will show up in this group. This is the trophy home contingent.
So what do we do? Protection of private property rights is essential to the American way of life. Protecting the magic of the environmental aesthetics for the alpine terrain of Ouray County is also essential to the citizens of Ouray County. It is also essential to those that come to Ouray County to visit here, to look at, and to travel in our mountains.
• Private property rights
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are the words of Thomas Jefferson from our Declaration of Independence. It could be said that Jefferson “borrowed” or was inspired by similar words from John Locke: “Life, liberty or possessions.” (Chapter 11, “The Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government” from “The Extent of the Legislative Power,” 1690.)
It is thought that Jefferson originally penned “Life, liberty and property.” The right and concept of property as a “natural right” of “natural law” was so strong, so fundamental with the founders. However, “property” was changed to “pursuit of happiness” because the founders believed that slaves would be considered as “property” and so the founders purposefully changed “property” to “pursuit of happiness.” The cessation of the abomination of slavery by the founders was an ultimate goal and this explains the substitution of word usage found in the Declaration of Independence.
“First a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property.” (“Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men” in “The Report of the Committees of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting,“ November 22, 1772, Sam Adams and Ben Franklin.)
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
As we see from all of this, “private property” is a very big and serious issue in America. It goes deep into English and Celtic origins. Patented mining claims are private property not to be trifled with lightly.
• The Environmental Aesthetic
To conserve, to preserve, the natural beauty and wildness of Ouray County is a worthy goal. This is a respectful endeavor. The protection of the environment is a sacred duty, as is the protection of private property. I believe those duties are divinely inspired. The perpetuity of the appreciated environment is a belief already well established in Ouray County. It is decades and decades old. When the Europeans first arrived in what is now Ouray County, they “took” it away from those who were before. The land was “taken” at this time in an excellent condition. There has always been someone before; there will always be someone after. We haven’t had a monopoly on ownership of these mountains nor stewardship of them. I would venture that we hold these mountains in a trust for the future.
Once again, the questions come back to us, “What do we do? How do we continue to protect as well as to use the “Alpine Zone?” I have friends that own mining claims. I know that their intent is to respect that land, those mountains. They will build small, low-impact cabins on their patented claims. Some already have. Zoning regulations – legal, also – are an attempt to insure the expression of the will of the people in the use and protection of the land.
Regulations? More regulations? I agree with many at the meeting: we do have way too many! Those that know me know what I think about the barrage of regulations today. Large and potential future growth was alluded to by several people at the BOCC meeting. This is an absolute reality in Ouray County’s future. I do believe that it is with the utmost concern, wisdom and sincerity that all three of the County Commissioners are approaching this situation in the Alpine Zone.
As I said to the commissioners at the end of my two-minute comment period on Monday evening, “Do your job.” This was not said as a command. It was said as a re-enforcement to pursue the sacred duties, the sacred honor that the oath of your office requires and demands of you.
Joe Ryan owns and operates the San Juan Hut Systems out of Ridgway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
