Jul. 28, 2005 - 21:15 MDT

DIPLOMATIC EVICTION ?

Trying to make a bit of sense out of a situation when I don't have enough facts to be totally knowledgeable. It is about Betty Dick and her property near Grand Lake, Colorado. There is an article in this morning's Rocky Mountain News about it by Charlie Brennan of said paper. In part:

Park Service won't fight bill to allow stay in cabin

"The National Park Service won't oppose legislation enabling Betty Dick to keep her idyllic summer home in Rocky Mountain National Park for the rest of her life."

"Lawrence Pacheco, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs," said Interior Secretary Gale Norton spoke Wednesday with Udall and told him the National Park Service would not block a bill being heard before a Senate sub-committtee today, aimed at allowing Dick to keep her 23-acre property near Grand Lake."

"The House of Representatives has alrady unanimously approved a measure, sponsored by Udall and still pending before the Senate in companion legislation authorized by U.S. SEn. Ken Salazar, D-Colorado, aimed at extending the term of Dick's lease for her lifetime."

"Dick has lived on the property -- which over the years has also hosted visiting groups such as THe Ladies Guild of Trinity Church in the Pines and The Philanthropic Educators Association -- from May through October for 25 years."

"Dick sued the fedceral government after the government ignored her deceased husband Fred Dick's right of first refusal when the property was sold by Fred Dick's divorced first wife to the National Park Service in 1979."

"Under the settlement terms of that suit, the Dicks made a lump-sum payment of $7,500 for a 25-year lease, at the conclusion of which the property was to revert to the National Park Service."

"The couple didn't expect to outlive the lease -- Fred Dick died in 1992 -- but Betty Dick will be in Washington, D.C., today to testify before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks in support of a bill to let her hang onto her high-country refuge for the rest of her days."

"The bill before the Senate would extend the 25-year lease for the duration of Dicks lifetime, at a fee of $300 a year -- which is the equivalent of $7,500 divided by 25."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is a fly or six in the ointment though. More follows:

"The National Park Service's buy-in to the legislative solution comes, however, with a price tag -- "fair market rent" -- that could be significant."

"That's where the National Park Service's support could still break down."

"We support the general goal of the Senate legislation to resolve the issue with Betty Dick, but with one important condition -- and that is, (that) continued occupancy of the property should be subject to "fair market value rent," said Rick Frost, spokesman for the Intermountain Regional Office of the National Park Service in Denver."

"The $300 per year that Dick has paid until now," Frost said , "would change based on what the appraisal came up with.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is one tiny fact in the article that I have not written about yet. Betty Dick is 83 years old. From what little I have read and been able to piece together, the Dick's owned the property until his ex-wife sold it to the Park Service, so it was not National Park Property at that time it seems. Obviously Betty Dick has been a sharing person with various organizations and hasn't held people off at gunpoint, has taken good care of the property from the time Mr. Dick owned it and probably before.

Yet we have a (hee, hee, hee) bean counter philosphy loose cannon on deck that is spewing fair market value rent and going with what an appraisal will show as that fair market value is.

To my way of looking at things, the Park Service claims ownership on land that was not legally sold to them and is being Scrooge on the booze over it.

Obviously the Park Service is eager to jump in on that land and "do sumpin'" with it, just what has not been made clear, but that they want fair market value rent for it. For property the Park Service truly doesn't own fair and square."

Seems to me that our Park Service has turned into a bunch of small minded, greedy types. And "fair market value" rent when the property is appraised by the "feds own" will turn out to be something far above what am 83 year old lady can come up with. She is only going to be with us a few more years, the government would not lose that much by leaving her at peace.

Or are the stinkin' bean counters going to come forth with their DIPLOMATIC EVICTION ? . . . . . . . . . .

Blog