The December 14th Durango Herald article by staff writer Shane Benjamin has done damage to the Durango & Silverton NG Railroad and to all coal fired railroads in general.
If a family decides the house they can afford happens to backs up to the Pennsylvania Turnpike or any Interstate, they cannot expect to close down that highway because of noise or fumes from the traffic. If another couple buys the house they can afford next to the school play yard, they should never get the local newspaper to be their voice in trying to close or relocate that school, because they didn’t like the noise of the kids playing. When people buy property, they have to compare all the advantages and disadvantages to decide what they can afford and accept. For this reason all property near railroads, interstates and airports, etc. have a generally lower land value for residence, and correspondingly lower taxes because of that proximity to noise and smoke.
Now, lets review the history of Durango. The railroad bought the entire place and built the enginehouse when there was NO one living south of the Animas River at the Main Street Bridge. This history is detailed in John Norwood’s book “Rio Grande Narrow Gauge”(1983) page 58-59. Briefly, the rails were spiked into what became Durango on July 27, 1881, but there was advance work in 1879 by the company’s chief negotiator in real estate, Dr. William Bell. He went through the Animas Valley to arrange for the Durango Terminal. The only residents were in Animas City and a proposal to them for the terminal was refused. Bell then arranged for some loyal residents to homestead claims south of the river, and then in legal time frame, purchased those homesteads under the name Durango Land and Coal Company. The roundhouse and railroad yard were built on this legally owned and empty land and the town of Durango was quickly laid out to the north of the new station. And very shortly thereafter, the silver and gold, coal burning, smelters were built directly west across the river from the station. The “lower side of town” south of the station became industrial with cattle pens, iron foundry and coal industries. Regardless of its convenience to the station and lower land value, the residents did not generally live in this area because of the coal smoke. If you bought land in Durango, it has been after the entry of the railroad or the smelters. Remember that date: JULY 27, 1881. There should be annual celebrations by the D&SNGRR on that date and smoke it up.
Now, lets go one step further and look at the taxes that have been paid to the town by all the landowners within the smoking limits of the Durango RR roundhouse. These taxes over 124 years are greatly reduced compared to other land in the town, because they are based on the value of that land as established by fair trade transactions that weighed its advantages or disadvantages of location. Location, location, location is the law of real estate. If the present day landowners want to remove the ‘smoke disadvantage’ of over all these years, which has kept that real estate from collecting more taxes, they should pay up that total amount in arrears of what these taxes would have been. If not paid, they are attempting to increase their land value without paying for it, unlike all the other owner of that land in the past 124 years.
And the Durango Herald article on December 14, 2004 attempts to MAKE news instead of reporting news on this old issue of smoke in the city. It has been a dead issue for years, and although the article attempts to read very favorable to the D&SNGRR, that progress is being made, it quotes combatants and just stirs the pot in attempt to make things boils again. It makes a distant reader wonder what is behind hurting the railroad that brings much life into the city. IS it because the city wants to buy the north yard land instead of the railroad leasing that land for its benefit of value to the till? Is this the way to bring pressure on the railroad? The Durango Herald did about 20 articles about the Narrow Gauge RR last year that were very interesting and useful to their readers, far and wide, but this one article should never have been published. Smoke is a non-issue, non-news, unless you live in Animas City, and your relatives were there before July 27, 1881.
Additionally, if you really want to reduce the volume of smoke, the landowner, who will benefit with increased land value, should pay for it with a surcharge on their taxes, proportional to the distance or direction of the smoke. That surcharge will cover the added cost over what the railroad now pays for coal, in order to buy and ship high BTU coal of the Pocahontas type from Southern West Virginia. This kind of coal is proving very fine in the 2’ gauge steam engine on the Maine Narrow Gauge RR Co. & Museum in downtown city wharf area of Portland, Maine. This nations’ electric user in Florida, New Hampshire and all points west, now pay to buy Wyoming coal for it low sulfur content. Therefore, is it unreasonable to ship good clean burning coal across the nation to Gallup, NM and truck it up to Durango? Remember, it is the historic image of a coal burning steam locomotive train that is needed to capture the style, smell and looks of old, to be of value to the historical recreation of the past. People ride the Silverton train because it is History, not just because it is a scenic train ride! And it costs a lot of money to keep those steam engines going, so any cost of smoke abatement or reduction should not be paid by the railroad in any part. If the @#$%& don’t like the coal smoke, don’t come and try to live in (cheaper real estate) downtown South Durango. To the combatants, and “several residents”: YOU are the public nuisance and should move elsewhere and not the railroad. The railroad was obviously here long before you came and the coal fired steam engines are of value to Durango and Silverton. And the newspaper should not be blowing your tune or giving you any voice.
This editorial is public domain and can be printed anywhere, copied and mailed to the Durango Herald. I dare them to print it on their editorial page.
