A bill in the Colorado Legislature (HB 1030) that would set consistent tolls through multiple counties was placed on an indefinite hold on March 26. The bill called attention to efforts by a private company to build the state’s first private toll road. Citizens of Falcon, Peyton, Calhan and other eastern plains towns showed up in Denver to protest the bill.The bill is on hold, but the controversy is far from over.The Front Range Toll Road Company was formed in 1986 by developer Ray Wells with the intention to build a 210-mile privately funded toll road running from north of Fort Collins to south of Pueblo. Although the specific route of the road remains undefined, Wells identified a 12-mile-wide corridor through which the road would pass. A state law enacted in 1892 would give the toll road company the power to apply the right of eminent domain: if the company was not successful in convincing those property owners in the road’s path to sell their land, the company could condemn the property and force the owners off the land.No one paid too much attention to the toll road idea until early 2005, when Rep. Richard Decker held a series of public meetings on the eastern plains. On March 21, the House approved HB 1030 by a vote of 62-3. The next day, the opposition, led by the Eastern Plains Citizens Coalition (EPCC), gathered a group of more than 500 to protest on the steps of the state capitol, and the bill was tabled.On April 21, Sen. Tom Wiens (R-Castle Rock) introduced SB 230, a bill that prohibits a private company from acquiring rights-of-way for a toll road through the use of eminent domain. On the House side, Rep. Jack Pommer (D-Louisville) introduced HB 1342, which would limit toll roads to a 3-mile corridor (instead of the 12-mile wide swath proposed by the FRTR developers) and require all toll road proposals to be subject to the same engineering and environmental studies required of federal interstate highway projects. Both bills passed and are now awaiting the governor’s signature.Gov. Owens has indicated that he will veto SB 230.Opponents of the toll road include ad hoc citizens’ groups from Pueblo to Weld County. The largest is the EPCC, headed by Marsha Looper and Chuck Shaw. “I became aware of the toll road when Rep. Decker had a town hall meeting in Ellicott in late February,” said Shaw. “On March 22, we had the largest turnout anyone can remember at the Capitol. We filled the old Supreme Court hearing chamber and four other hearing rooms, and we still had people out in the halls.” The coalition is concerned about numerous issues, but the primary concern is the right of eminent domain.The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that citizens cannot be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It’s those two phrases – “due process of law” and “just compensation” – that are at issue in the toll road situation. Colorado statute 38-2-101 clearly allows private corporations to condemn real estate for building a road. When Wells announced his intention to exercise this right, it came as a surprise to many Colorado residents.”Property owners in Falcon, Peyton and sections of Ellicott and Calhan are affected – about 10,000 parcels of land, according to public records,” said Looper. “If people in Falcon had known 20 years ago that this guy was going to build a road, nobody would’ve bought any property here.”On a Web site that contains pro-toll road information (www.cololegislativeinfo.com/TollRoad.html), Decker supports the concept of allowing private companies to take land. “Many are quick to condemn the power of eminent domain for corporations but enjoy the public benefit of eminent domain without ever really thinking about it,” he writes on the site. “Eminent domain came about precisely because the market could not solve the endless bargaining problem.” Decker did not return a call to his office.The EPCC has hired a lawyer and set up a legal defense fund to counter the threat of condemnation. Looper said, “I believe that this precedent sets up one of those slippery slopes where now big business sees that Colorado is for sale by the governor.” The group is also concerned about profits that the toll road company may realize by selling easements to power and cable companies along the 12-mile-wide corridor. “He [Wells] can take our property at a cheap price, because it’s adjacent to a freeway, and then sell it by the foot to Xcel Energy,” said Looper. “He’s optimized every square foot of that property he’s been able to grab, and we believe that’s the real intent.”Area groups have many other concerns about the road. The EPCC sites a study completed in January 2005 by Wilbur Smith Associates, a consultant hired by the Colorado Tolling Enterprise, a group created by the Colorado Department of Transportation to finance, build, operate and maintain toll highways for the state. The study examined 39 possible projects and subjected each to a screening process that evaluated the feasibility of each plan.After estimating the proposed costs of each plan, including capital, operating and maintenance costs, the study concluded that five projects could cover 70 percent or more of their project costs with toll revenue and another four projects might be feasible with some federal funding support. The Front Range Toll Road was judged financially unfeasible.”So we’ve got this albatross that’s in the middle of the plains, cutting the state in half,” said Looper. EPCC believes that once Wells builds the road, he will try to sell it back to the state. “And if the state’s going to own it eventually, why shouldn’t the state participate in creating the guidelines that will build it?” asked Shaw.While the toll road is the only all-private toll road proposed in the state, 39 other toll road projects are under consideration, including the Springs Toll Road (sometimes called the Banning-Lewis Parkway), a public-private initiative between CDOT and a private company incorporated in 2003. The exhibit attached to the articles of incorporation for the Springs Toll Road indicates that part of this road will run east of Marksheffel Road and then head straight south over Highway 24, east of the intersection of Highway 24 and Highway 94.The various citizens’ groups are now alerting the public to the larger issues of eminent domain, transportation policy and citizen input into the political process.Sharon Croghan from rural Weld County said, “Gov. Owens has always drawn strong support from this area, and a veto of SB 230 would demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the property rights of all the hard-working people, not only within the super slab corridor, but throughout Colorado.”
