Land swap involves a change of use that affects neighboring properties

Editor’s note: This letter was either edited for length in the print edition, or was not printed due to space restrictions.

Dear Editor:
On Jan. 25, Mrs. Ullrey and I both had our letters to the editor published. Mine was against the Bear Ranch land exchange and hers was in support of it. She made a constitutional argument. She noted that although the rights of the individual were sacrosanct in the Constitution this was not an individual’s issue but one of what was best for the majority. 

I assume the majority she is speaking about are those that will enjoy the lands Mr. Koch is swapping to them. Since that majority won’t get a say in this issue, I wonder if they would be in favor of it if they knew the facts. If we took a vote of the American people would they vote to trade away over 1,800 acres of public land for 900 acres in return? Would the voters allow a traditional elk herd to fall to the care of Mr. Koch? 

When it comes to privatizing public lands I think of the Irish potato famines. Parents literally watched their children starve to death while woods and rivers teamed with game and fish that belonged solely for the sport of the wealthy property owners. It is not socialism for the public to protect their common properties. If we made the argument that the swap to this obscenely rich guy is just a small percent of our public land I don’t think the argument would fly with the voters.

I also think this issue did involve the rights of the individual. If my letter had been printed accurately I think you might agree. A one-sentence paragraph had been omitted from my letter.  That paragraph read, “The county commissioners made a decision to allow a property change of use without the neighboring properties being provided notification of a public hearing.”

My claim is that by approving the land exchange the commissioners were approving a change of use in a property from private to public use. This change of use could affect the neighboring properties. It is a county rule (perhaps even a state rule) that the county hold a public hearing and notify the neighboring properties, in writing, so they have an opportunity to voice their concerns. This did not happen.

So, I, an individual, may suffer from my far richer and superior neighbor moving a public nuisance from his backyard — a nuisance he was aware of when he bought his place — and dumping it right squarely in mine. 

I also face a local government that has ignored their own rules and my rights. Our property has five adjacent properties and this is the second time this exact injustice has occurred to my property. Who says lightning doesn’t strike twice? The decisions made solely by planning or the commissioners could have a negative effect on the value of my property and my family’s future prospects. 

I really don’t go looking for extra issues in my life and am beginning to think a lot of them wouldn’t be there if we had a county staff that knew the rules and directed the commissioners to follow them. The only way to fix this constitutional wrong is to stop voting in lock step and go back to a multi-party system. If competition is good for business; if variety is good for the gene pool; then, for God’s sake, a new opinion might be sorely needed in our county government. 

Norma Jessen
Paonia