U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 10, 2016 11:33 AM UTC

Coincidence or collusion or what?

  • 2 Comments
  • by: Benita Phillips

In the Sunday Daily Sentinel, dated May 8, 2016, Christian Reece, Executive Director of Club 20, was published as a guest editorial. The title was “Supreme Court ruling a victory for property rights, jobs.”
Today I found an “opinion” editorial by Kelly Brough, President and CEO of Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, published in the “Denver Post Opinion” area on May 6, 2016, titled “Yes, Supreme Court Ruled correctly on local fracking bans.” Subtitled “Private Property rights matter in the state of Colorado.”

These two “independent” editorials, though do not follow each other word for word, they are so similar in their content that it boggles the mind that these two women aren’t telepathically connected somehow. I maybe wrong, and I have no way of really testing my theory, but this appears to me to be a concerted effort to disseminate like messages to give the Colorado Supreme Court kudos? on a ruling that is flawed to its very core. In neither of these “editorials” was the “private property rights” of the surface owner taken into consideration, nor was there any discussion by the Colorado Supreme Court (CSC) in regards to surface private property.

Essentially dismissing surface rights by the CSC, the process of the “split estate” has been the most ludicrously entangled piece of ruling ever perpetrated on “surface” private property owners. Common sense alone would have predicted such an idea that forces access to hidden below-ground resources is NOT COMPATIBLE with surface living organism including humans.

The CSC ruled against the right of citizens to pursue their happiness by planning for and deciding the path of their lives and business priorities by voting in a democratically held vote. The communities determined by their vote, that their communities should support their priorities for a “healthy” and vigorous community set to move on into the future with a population not mired in respiratory illnesses, cancers, and a dead environment. For where the oil and gas companies goes to frack, there too goes all else precious to humanity. Just look to Alberta tar sands…North America’s first rout of Environmental Refugees. Picture that for the future of your kids and grandchildren.

Comments

2 thoughts on “Coincidence or collusion or what?

  1. Essentially dismissing surface rights by the CSC, the process of the “split estate” has been the most ludicrously entangled piece of ruling ever perpetrated on “surface” private property owners. Common sense alone would have predicted such an idea that forces access to hidden below-ground resources is NOT COMPATIBLE with surface living organism including humans.

    Very well put, Ms. Phillips. I hope to call you "Sheriff" Phillips in the near future.

    I think that the Sentinel editorial and the Denver Post author used  the same talking points, probably furnished by COGA. You're right, it is a form of insanity to suggest that the rights of those who extract underground resources are somehow more sacred than the rights of we surface dwelling critters.

    I notice that Kelly Brough, writing in the Post, throws around that same old disproven figure of "100,000 oil and gas jobs in Colorado". The actual figure is closer to 30,000, and probably less now. I have students who are going up to North Dakota to work in those oil fields for the summer, because there aren't any jobs in Colorado.

  2. Actually, the notion of rights to both parties in a split estates are well established.  Our farm is a split estate, though not in terms of mineral rights.  But my sister and I each own50 percent.  Each party's right can be enforced with reasonable equity.   To claim that mineral rights can be totally abrogated because the surface rights owner just doesn't want to look at a wellhead is , frankly, obscene and something no responsible court would uphold.  Likewise, the mineral rights owner can't bulldoze your home away to locate a drill there.   There is a reason God invented slant drilling and that reason was to provide reasonable use of both sets of property rights while denying either side the right to totally abrogate the rights of the other.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

73 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!