Official who pushed cleanup seeks $20,000 access fee

Posted by RickyLee on March 26, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just end the pipe at his property, and let it all dump there.

Posted by MeAgainstMachine on March 26, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like someone is trying to cash in on the urgency of this potentially life threatening matter. The EPA is going to cover all costs of making this happen, yet they "expect compensation for the digging, the inconvenience and the permanent easement." Get real, this is in the best interest of the members of this commmunity. I say that Commissioner Olsen and his wife move to Boulder. That kind of attitude is only embraced in a social dump like the PRofB. Also, I would like to know how eminent domain could or would apply to this.

Posted by PajamaPulitzer on March 26, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It certainly is no stretch to imagine the EPA telling this land owner on a date later that he must cease operation of the rail line because it interferes with the pumping operation. Absolutely he should be compensated for the easement. They're called property "rights" for good reason.

Posted by mark79trans on March 26, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess this is the wrong crowd to explain the principle of takings and property rights. Simply, if someone's property is used, they have a right to compensation. The government can NOT take people's property. I can't believe that we even discuss this, but time and again people are regulated out of their property and left with nothing resulting in litigation if they have the money to fight. I do not want to hear about common good and collective philosophy. We either have freedom and the protection of individual rights or we don't. In today's America we are dangerously flirting with the answer of no.

Posted by buzzman on March 26, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm with rickyLee-what a selfish subhuman varient and he is or rather was a commissioner-I won't be taking his train this summer

Posted by rellimpank on March 26, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

----"; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.--""

--a small snip out of the Fifth Amendment---

Posted by wilson5 on March 26, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad someone brought up Boulder. Somehow. I think it's hilarious when people try to project everything they hate about the world onto Boulder. What makes you think that the people of Boulder would "embraced that kind of attitude"? Maybe you don't remember that the people of Boulder were overwhelmingly opposed to the adverse possession decision, another shady property situation. You may have some legitimate reasons to dislike Boulder, but it borders on delusional to believe its citizens would support a delay in an urgent environmental cleanup to pay off a greedy property owner.

Posted by Raemid on March 26, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If he's not willing to work with them, then it sounds like it would be a good eminent domain argument. The government can take his land for just about any reason, and is commonly taken for public utility use. Sounds like this fits right in.

If the EPA is unwilling to compensate the owner for his loss of land rights, and the owner is unwilling to let them use it for free, then it sounds like the next best option is for the government to buy the land under eminent domain rules. This usually amounts to stealing it instead of buying it, but it's an option for a case like this. It would probably be better for the owner to work with the EPA in this case (even though he's losing some rights on his land), since the alternative is losing all rights on his land, also with little compensation.

Posted by nuclied on March 26, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While not agreeing with the Olsen's decision to ask for compensation, it is his property and no one should have the right to tell him what he can or can't do with it. I'm sure the EPA has kept tabs on this "catastrophe" waiting to happen and NOW they're upset? Perhaps instead of calling an emergency, they should have started working on this project and negotiated a fair deal months (or years) ago before this was such a disaster waiting to happen. I see they only have themselves to blame for this

Posted by mark79trans on March 26, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"best option is for the government to buy the land under eminent domain rules. This usually amounts to stealing it instead of buying it,"

Fortunately, there are non-profits specializing in the legal representation for takings such as the Pacific Legal Foundation. If it were me, you bet I would file if I didn't receive just compensation. Rarely, does the petitioner lose in the appellate courts...it just costs a lot of money to fight it so most people give up.

Posted by Realitymensch on March 26, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It sounds like a conflict of interest: Olsen leads the charge for a cleanup (good) and expects a financial return from it (bad). There is no way that being compensated works out to a net of zero for him.

Posted by theQ on March 26, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another greedy human willing to sacafice other people for his own self-enrichment.

Posted by PajamaPulitzer on March 26, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey good people. Tell me what happens if the EPA pipeline leaks contaminated water on this man's land. Wait, I'll tell you; they'll charge him to clean it up! He would be an utter nincompoop to let them set that pipeline for free.

Posted by MrJim on March 26, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What you all seem to be missing, they are not 'Taking' his property, they are wanting to bury a pipeline under the property, thus establishing an easement. No different than phone, power, cable TV lines, public water lines, sewer lines, etc, which sometimes are run under private property. Here you have an elected county official trying to cash in on a county problem. Pretty sleezy.

Posted by Randel on March 26, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ask not what your country can do for you.

Posted by me2 on March 26, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Q, at least we humans can spell.

Posted by buffsblg on March 26, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is the right of every citizen to decide what to do with their property and they should not be forced by a governmental agency to allow the pipeline without just compensation. That said, by becoming a public official, Mr.Olson took on some responsibility to the greater good. It would be a better thing for him to allow the pipeline and were I a voter, I would consider his decision not to in my vote. Our rights may be waived by out choice. Seems like this may be a time to waive them for the communities benefit, as his neighbors have done.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrJim, finally someone to point out what an easement means!
If this greedy commissioner delays the process too long, he and his wife are going to lose their little tourist train business! He has already lost a chance at a next term in office.

Posted by MeAgainstMachine on March 26, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wilson5 - I was poking fun at the attacks that Boulder is always subjected to. Way to take the bait...hook, line and sinker!

I would like to know where the $20,000 figure came from and just exactly what it would be compensating for? Was an independent third party involved in that quote? How you compensate someone for future inconveniences if you haven't done anything yet? Would that not unjustly weight the figure one way or the other in monetary terms? I think that a more accurate figure could be established after the pipeline is laid.

Secondly, we all live with some kind of easement on our property, whether it is phone, cable, power, sewer, etc. and it probably effects none of us in any distiguishable way. If this easement is to run underground through his property and not terminate anywhere on it, it shouldn't be a problem if it is done properly.

Why doesn't he want to solve the problem ASAP? After all, he is county commissioner and it is his obligation as a civil servant to do what is in the best interest of the people. Sounds to me like he is just out to make a buck, rather than be part of a solution that would keep the community safe and possibly blood off his hands.

Posted by JSeifert on March 26, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Government will just take their land put the pipe on it and then give it to a judge in boulder that walked accross it twice in 30 years and they will get nothing.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why don't we have the prairie dogs start digging a hole under the tracks while all of this negotiation is going on? They will at least have a head start. And the commissioner can't do anything to the prairie dogs!

Posted by Jack_Ryan on March 26, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How odd, a County Commissioner just happens to own the land needed to abate the water hazard and now he wants compensation. Hmm, let me think... How odd the former Mayor of Denver just happened to own the land they built DIA on and he too was well compensated. Notice a pattern here?

Posted by PajamaPulitzer on March 26, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Heidi: The Commissioner could hire the Bison killer to drop by with a couple of hand grenades.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PP, well, we don't know the outcome on that one yet, so he may not be safe! Besides, he would be blowing up his precious tourist tracks.

Posted by jcn7vc on March 26, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What about the devaluation of the land? After all, he is having a 12-inch line carrying contaminated water run through his property. Underground or not, it would still cause a major decrease in the value of the property, right? I agree with other posters, it is his property to do with it as he pleases. It is just a water line, they could re-direct it around his property or find another way to the treatment plant.

As far as the EPA planning ahead for something like this, I don't think that was possilbe. If I remember correctly, I did a little study into this property while I was taking an environmental class in school. It looked like the EPA was almost ready to take the property off of the Superfund list because they were able to contain the water and treat it. With as many highly dangerous Superfund sites as they have to keep up with in the country, it is possible that this one was only looked at every few years or so.

Posted by Quagmate on March 26, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a few points -

This is Leadville, one of he most mined and polluted sites on the planet.

The property can't be worth that much if it is next to the mine to begin with.

Sewers, gas lines, cable, electric all run under your property. Water from a contaminated mine is no different than a sewer under your yard (both are not desirable).

Compensation would be if the business was impacted - there is no impact unless the line breaks on his property, in which case he owner will likely sue the Gov for a lot more than 20K.

It doesn't sound like the owner even lives on the property (though it isn't directly stated) so the only issue is the business.

The land isn't being used by the Gov. It is an easement. They are not going to profit or make money off the land, convert it to a test site, make it into a park or raise llamas on it.

Really, this has to be the silliest thing I have ever heard. A billion gallons of slurry could come down the mountain at any moment and you wan't to negotiate? If the mountain gives out becuase this guy delayed the implementation, is he liable? Maybe not, but there will be a lot of angry people.

Posted by wilson5 on March 26, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MeAgainstMachine,

Wow, that really was a sophisticated and nuanced joke.

Step 1: Write something that sounds exactly what Boulder-haters say.
Step 2: Mock someone for thinking that it sounds exactly what Boulder-haters say

Posted by MeAgainstMachine on March 26, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wilson5 - although my processes for self entertainment at the expense of others is far from refined, you have to admit two things: That someone (me) was gonna make a Boulder reference and that someone (you) was gonna latch on and attack it. It is as predictable as the sun rising.

Two questions: How do you actually feel about the article? Or do you just read the posts and find someone to go after?

Posted by wilson5 on March 26, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You might infer that I think that the commissioner is a greedy property owner who is delaying an urgent environmental cleanup.

Posted by bropous on March 27, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Having been screwed to the gills by the EPA after purchasing a property and finding pollutants there left by a long-perished previous owner (Hughes Tool Company), I say to this guy, gig them for every cent you can get! They act like this is an altruistic activity, but you watch, if that pipeline DOES leak, just like someone up above said, the EPA will force this guy to pay for the mitigation.

No, you can't trust bureaucrats when it comes to your own property rights.

Posted by bropous on March 27, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heidi, "little tourist train business"?

You ARE talking about this man's livelihood. How is his "little tourist train business" any less deserving of preservation than the auto window tinting business being snatched up by RTD to turn over to private developers?

Is it not possible that this fellow has owned this land for many, many years, purchased the land without the slightest indication there would be a problem in 2008 involving molybdenum-enriched water that needed to be pumped into a reclamation plant?

Did he improperly pressure county commissioners to put the reclamation plant in a position where his land would be directly between the plant and a future mitigation project?

I think it highly probable that the man is simply trying to protect his business interests and his property rights, something any normal human being would do. Is it his fault that the mining company, now long-defunct, did not clear the drainage from the mine to leak molybdenum into the local water table?

I lost two businesses due to government interference, and can comprehend the warniess of this individual to allow the EPA to put a 12" pipe under his train rails. Do it for the public good? Sure, and then the public will do him REAL good...

Altruism has no market value.

Posted by bropous on March 27, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice, again attacking the man becasue of his tourist-oriented business. Must be so nice, Heidi, to not have your lily white hands sullied by the tourist dollar.

Do you have any idea how much money is generated in Colorado each year from your filthy, unwashed, uneducated and unwanted tourist? Do you pay anywhere as much in tax dollars per year to the General Fund as this individual does? Hmmm? So who is actually contributing more to the economy of Colorado: Mr. Olsen, with his "little tourist train business", or you, with your....???

I'll say it right now, that he more than likely pays far more in taxes from his "little tourist train business" than I do. Does he create any jobs? Do you?? Does tourism create jobs in Colorado???

Just because his "little tourist train business" is farther down in elevation than the tip of your cloud-scraping nose does not mean he has to sacrifice his livelihood and his family's accumulated assets for the benefit of his neighbors becasue the EPA wants to do pollution mitigation on the cheap.

Posted by jcn7vc on March 27, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous is right. If you buy property, you are responsible for all clean up of it, even if it wasn't your fault. The EPA will just say that you should have done a better job analyzing the property before buying it. If this guy lets the EPA put a contaminated water pipeline through his property and it breaks, who knows how long it will be before the EPA can deal with it. After all, they still have the water upstream of the break to deal with.

And this is not slurry, so let's not get confused here. This is contaminated water, a lot different.

Posted by watching_closely on March 28, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

VERY IMPORTANT--This commissioner met in secret to formulate the poor plan, voted repeatedly for precisely the pipeline in precisely the place that it is to be placed when he stands to profit, probably illegaly, certainly unethically.
This commissioner cares only about HIS 5th Amendment right, he has pursued taking of others property vigorously without offering compensation.
This commissioner's train may have CAUSED the tunnel collapse. The train weighs 124 tons and for 3 months passes 4 times a day over the tunnel.
The tunnel is not the only thing polluting Lake County.
Although the commissioners cried about the danger to the people in the trailer park they have done NOTHING about moving them and their minions are attacking folk who point that out and offer the germ of a solution.

Posted by carlindenver on March 28, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LAKE COUNTY COMMISSIONER OLSEN,AND HIS CHARMING WIFE,PRESSURES FEDERAL AGENCIES TO COME AND CLEAN UP A MESS AND THEN, LIKE ANY WELL RESPECTED SMALL TOWN BULLY BUREACRAT, CREATES HIS OWN VERSION OF A HIDDEN SPEED TRAP FOR THE UNAWARE VISITORS. WHAT A CHUMP!!