Defending Alberta Park, Memes Courier, La Plata Democratic Assembly

.

On occasion I do a flier titled the Memes Courier.  

Here's a copy of my most recent venture.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

✯ EXTRA ✯  The Memes Courier  ✯ EXTRA  ✯

Alberta Park, Rio Grande River Watershed, 

Wolf Creek Pass, Colorado, USA

~ The Bid for a Village at Wolf Creek ~

La Plata County Democratic Assembly Edition ~ March 17, 2012

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

While fact checking the article in the previous post, I discovered something interesting.

The original 1986 Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture’s offer to trade Saguache District parcels for a chunk of Alberta Park near Wolf Creek Pass was rejected by the Rio Grande Forest Service.
Yet, that original rejection metamorphosed into an approval and the USFS cannot cite how it happened!

What happened?  Who knows?  Was it perhaps a clerical error? 
How do we actually know McCombs’ Deed is legitimate? 
Has everyone been fooled into playing liars poker?

Fast forward a quarter century and that landlocked parcel at Alberta Park has been nothing but failed advances and headaches for the intrepid speculator.
 
Now McCombs want’s to trade in 178 acres of that land, for 204 acres of RGFS land with direct access to Highway 160.

Sadly, all bets seem to be that the RGNF is on the way to allowing the trade. 

USFS attitude seems to be that getting away from the threats and headaches associated with McCombs’ current parcel and the FR391 road access question/hassle is worth it.  This thinking assumes development will happen one way or another. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regarding the road and access issue - the developer’s main legal claim to FS391 access rests on ANILCA - “Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act” where the US Forest Service is required to provide for access to private lands within USFS lands. 

However, some will argue ANILCA was intended for “grandfathered” parcels, that is, where the private holdings existed before USFS took possession of surrounding lands. 

That is decidedly not the case with the LMJV acquisition of Albert Park.  Is McCombs  using ANILCA as a real estate poker chip?  Do we have a right to object? 

Seems to me, if it’s fine for a businessman to attempt such a maneuver... then it’s also fine for citizens to fight such an illegitimate takeover and ultimate destruction of a valued national treasure tooth and nail.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

       Incidentally, I’ve presented a FOIA request to the Rio Grande National Forest intent on tracking down the paper trail of the 1986 Trade Proposal, its rejection - the reversal - the conveyance of the Alberta Park Deed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

       Thing is, by approving McCombs trade, all threats to FS391 and immediate area are removed.  While virtually guaranteeing development near Highway 160, on the shoulder of Alberta Park and the watershed.

By accepting the trade, this reasoning goes, all Alberta Park issues, tensions, threats will be removed. . . But at the cost of guaranteeing development of it’s north/east flank.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      

Others find that approach unacceptable ~ pointing out:

A) Serious questions surrounding the legitimacy of the original 1986 landswap are written off by USFS with the reasoning that it’s beyond the Statue of Limitations.  But which some others believe is very much an issue needing review and answers before any further land swaps occurs. 

B) Maybe ownership of the current parcel can’t be contested... but wouldn’t it be appropriate for those ownership-transfer questions to get answered before tainted land gets traded for good?

C) Refusing the swap doesn’t grant McCombs permission to do anything regarding his current holding.  All future road and village development is contingent on a whole bunch more regulatory channels and other windows of opportunity for the public to have a legitimate voice in the proceedings.  Where citizens can once again defend Alberta Park’s biological importance and an appreciation that no development should be allowed.

D)  Every delay to Mr. McCombs scheme allows for more opportunities to convince  McCombs {and partners} along with the Rio Grande Forest Service that finding a way to return that land to the protection of the Rio Grande Forest Service is the smart and patriotic thing to do.  To leave Alberta Park as pristine a watershed as possible for the needs of future generations.

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~