95-acre tract

Dear Editor:

I have mixed emotions about the State owning the 95 acre tract. It is my opinion that in the event the State acquired this tract, they would inevitably extend their policy aspirations beyond the property boundaries. I do find it bitter-sweet “amusing” that one public entity finds the boot of another public entity on its neck, and doesn’t like the fit. That said, welcome to the club and our world.

I think it is ridiculous that after purchasing the 95 acre tract for $750k in Dec. 2010, because “it was just too good of a deal to pass up” (paraphrase of “commissioner’s” quote I recall seeing in the Pagosa SUN circa 2011) and with the expectation that a detention facility and other public buildings would be sited on this tract, a vision later morphed to ballparks and general public use purposes, the present “Commissioners” were disappointed their internal market value estimate of $1.2 million was not confirmed by a recent “independent” market value assessment that only yielded a convenient escalation of 10% more than the initial “smoking hot” purchase price, excluding a valuation component for the associated water rights.

The absurdity of this fiscal logic is underscored by the do-gooder oversight faction that has since thrown up a yellow tape barrier across much of the 95 acre tract. Unless there really is a Parallel Universe, how could this meaningful non-use impairment actually enhance the market value of undeveloped land? That said, now that Archuleta County has apparently discovered a way to exploit the Parallel Universe, perhaps we’re on the cusp of cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, hunger, world peace, run away public debt and unsustainable deficit spending.

Bill Egg

This story was posted on February 27, 2014.