Telluride tug of war
Implications grave in taking of valley floor

By Jessica Peck Corry

This article originally appeared in the Rocky Mountain News on May 19, 2007

Extraterritorial condemnation. It sounds like something from a Star Trek episode. For one Colorado man, however, it’s a fact of life that is threatening to take his land.

Such forcible taking of private property happens when a local municipality uses eminent domain to acquire land outside its jurisdiction. Most often, governments pursue this type of condemnation as a last resort to prevent a landowner’s development plans. The only problem? Under a 2004 Colorado law, such government action is forbidden. This fact, however, isn’t stopping town leaders and an activist judge in Telluride from trying to take Neal Blue’s land.

Perhaps Blue’s story isn’t the most sympathetic to the peaceniks and environmentalists who have turned him into a villain. He’s an incredibly successful capitalist who wants to use his 570 acres at the entrance to Telluride in San Miguel County to build luxury houses. His property sits between the road that leads into the once-sleepy mountain town and its ritzy ski village.

Blue and Telluride leaders have been battling over the fate of his property for more than two decades. When it became clear that Blue did not want to sell his property to the town as part of its preservation efforts, however, Telluride took its taxpayer-funded battle to the courts. Town leaders, unfazed by the fact that the property was located outside of the town’s boundaries, attempted to condemn his property. In 2004, the Colorado legislature responded, passing the so-called “Telluride Amendment,” a change that prohibits such government abuse.

This didn’t stop town leaders, however, and they continued their taxpayer-funded court battle, emboldened when District Judge Charles Greenacre struck down the amendment. Greenacre wrongly pronounced that it violated the home-rule powers granted to cities under the constitution.

Such a ruling could establish a damning precedent, one where basic constitutional rights, including property rights and due process, are only protected if a local government decides they should be. Imagine if such a ruling came out regarding race or gender discrimination. Property rights deserve the same respect.

As a result of Greenacre’s activist decision, condemnation proceedings against Blue continued, with an ultimate determination that the town could condemn his property, but would have to give him more than $50 million in compensation. After years of fundraising, activists earlier this month met their goal of meeting this mandate. They jumped for joy at the prospect of finally taking Blue’s land.

But, if the government can take Blue’s land, it can also take yours.

In this era of “condemnation by intimidation,” property owners without the financial capabilities of Blue will have to think carefully before fighting an uphill and expensive legal battle to protect their property.

We may not always like what our neighbors do with their land, but then we should give them a price they are willing to take for their property. In this case, the land isn’t for sale. And if the Supreme Court is listening, it won’t be up for condemnation either.

Jessica Peck Corry, a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute, is the author of Tower Tussle: The Colorado Battle over Extraterritorial Condemnation.