Owens' veto puts toll road developer back on track

By Cherry Sokoloski
North Forty News

The Colorado legislature has made its exit for the year, but the issue of private toll roads is still as hot as asphalt in July.

Will a private toll road be built in Colorado? If so, how will it be regulated, and will private property rights be protected? These are questions facing the state this summer, as citizen groups and an interim legislative committee grapple with how to handle the issue.

Plans came to light early this year for a private road and rail line to be built on Colorado's eastern plains by the Front Range Toll Road Co. Since then, the road's prospects have swung back and forth, as various bills were introduced in both houses of the Colorado legislature and hundreds of angry citizens descended on the state capitol. In the end, the issue was back where it started. The two bills that did pass the legislature, both restricting the powers of private toll road companies, were vetoed by Gov. Bill Owens in June, after the legislature adjourned.

The issue that has caused most concern is the use of eminent domain by a private company. An 1880s Colorado law, designed for the Pikes Peak Toll Road, is still on the books, and FRTRC plans to use that law to condemn property for its toll road. The 210-mile road would run between Wellington and Pueblo, about 25 miles east of Interstate 25.

Residents along the route are worried about property values plummeting in the face of such a project. They are also concerned that FRTRC would not have to follow the environmental guidelines required of state-built roads.

Owens, in a June 6 letter to the Colorado House, explained his reasons for vetoing the two bills, HB 1342 and SB 230. Saying he has "always been a strong advocate for private property rights," he called the two bills "far too broad and sweeping."

Owens said Colorado needs private investment in transportation infrastructure, since state funding for transportation is shrinking. He encouraged the legislature to look at appropriate standards and conditions for private toll roads and "the corresponding condemnation authority."

The governor's vetoes, while expected by many, have left some legislators and residents along the proposed toll road's path crying foul about what they see as a violation of property rights.

Citizens respond

Stu Hicklin of Wellington has been active with the Eastern Plains Citizens Coalition, a group that has sought to restrict the powers of private toll road companies in Colorado. Hicklin's property is in the path of the proposed road. He said SB 230 and HB 1342 would have "cleaned up the laws" but did not prohibit private corporations from building roads in the state.

SB 230 would have removed the power of eminent domain from private toll road companies. HB 1342 would have required private road companies to follow state and federal environmental regulations and to integrate their plans with overall regional transportation planning.

"By vetoing these two bills," Hicklin said, "Owens is supporting the violation of Colorado property owners' rights granted by the state constitution. He was clearly acting on behalf of the Front Range Toll Road Co."

Hicklin said that several Republicans in Colorado are looking into past and present connections between Owens and FRTRC president Ray Wells. "We suspect collusion between Gov. Owens and FRTRC and some FRTRC employees who are former state officials," he said. "This isn't right."

The Transportation Legislative Review Committee, composed of state representatives and senators as well as private citizens, will meet throughout the summer to discuss the private toll road issue as well as other transportation concerns. One of its most vocal members on the toll road issue is State Sen. Tom Wiens, a Castle Rock Republican whose district lies within the southern stretch of the proposed FRTRC road.

Wiens sponsored SB 230 and said he plans to introduce the same legislation at the start of the next session. He thinks that a veto from the governor could be overridden. If that doesn't happen, he said, he will spearhead an initiative process and "let the people speak" about private companies using eminent domain.

"As Republicans, we are the party that traditionally values and protects private property rights," Wiens said. "The governor's veto essentially ignores one of our core principles...I will not waver in my efforts to make sure private property rights aren't cast aside in Colorado."

Rep. Jack Pommer, a Democrat representing Longmont and Boulder, sponsored HB 1342 and said he was surprised at the governor's veto of the House bill. He is not as confident as Wiens about overriding a veto in the next legislative session, however.

"The governor has made it pretty clear that he wants a private company to condemn property," Pommer commented. As chair of the review committee, he hopes to find out what the governor will accept before proposing legislation for the next session.

"It's great to have a private company help out (with road building)," said Pommer, "but we have to be careful." He cautioned against the attitude that says, "Wow, it's free. We'll do whatever it takes."

Both Pommer and Wiens expressed their sympathy for property owners along the proposed FRTRC route, some of whom have put building plans on hold while the toll road issue is hashed out. "The governor needs to go out to these people and explain what he's thinking," Pommer said.

CDOT takes stand

Stacey Stegman, spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Transportation, said the agency did not support either HB 1342 or SB 230 because "the bills really needed some work." CDOT wants to encourage private investment in Colorado transportation, she said, but the agency also recognizes that certain parameters must be in place regarding environmental impacts and mitigation for affected property owners.

Herman Stockinger, CDOT's lobbyist, said one option would be a public-private partnership, in which the state would retain the power of eminent domain. This type of arrangement, he said, would be more palatable to landowners because "they know there would be an appropriate process" before land was condemned. He said he could also envision a private company having eminent domain, but "they would have to prove public benefit."