By Seth Richardson
The Mystery Cavern at the Garden of the Gods, sealed up in 1935, must be reopened for archeological examination and documentation. The actions of the Colorado Springs Parks and Recreation Advisory Board in denying access to credentialed archeologists based on objections by Ute tribal historian Alden Naranjo of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe is a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government “establishment” of religion.
There may be legitimate reasons for keeping the cavern sealed, including preservation of archeological resources or safety, but the Board used as its excuse the one reason that it is legally forbidden to use: Religion.
According to the article in the Gazette by reporter Dave Phillips, Colorado Springs agreed in the 1990s that no archeological digs would take place in the Garden of the Gods without tribal approval because the Ute Tribe claims that the park has “spiritual significance.” While we all should respect the places of “spiritual significance” that any religious group cares about, such respect should not, and indeed cannot be established as a law or policy by any governmental unit without violating the First Amendment.
A similar controversy exists in Wyoming, at Devil’s Tower National Monument. Native American Indians object to climbers scaling the basalt volcano core because they feel the place has spiritual significance. They have attempted for years to persuade the National Park Service to ban climbing entirely, or at least ban it during “sacred” periods when Indians worship there, out of respect for Native American Indian tradition and religious practice.
The best the National Park Service has been able to do, on advice from the United States Attorney, is to post a “voluntary” climbing ban in June, a time of sacred significance, that asks, but does not require that climbers respect Indian traditions and religious observances. No mandatory ban can be enacted because this would, as the actions of the Board do in this case, violate the Constitutional ban on government either advancing or inhibiting religion.
The relevant United States Supreme Court case is Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, decided in 1971. In this case, the Court lays out a tripartite test of government actions to determine if the action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The first prong of the tests asks, “Does the government’s action have a secular legislative purpose?”
The second prong of the test asks, “Does the government’s action have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion?”
The third prong of the test asks, “Does the government’s action result in an ‘excessive entanglement’ of government in religion?”
In the case of the Garden of the Gods Mystery Cavern, the advisory board’s decision facially violates the first and second prongs of the Lemon test.
According to the article, the board stated that it would approve the request for archeological examination of the cave “if there were no objections from the Ute tribe.” But because the reason that the city made the agreement to ask permission from the Ute Tribe is based upon the Tribe’s claim that the park has “spiritual significance,” this causes the boards deference to the Tribe to be based upon prohibited religious criteria, which makes the board’s action an unlawful and unconstitutional decision that has no legitimate “secular purpose” and which has the primary effect of advancing the interests of Native American Indian religion over the legitimate, secular need for proper archeological examination and documentation of the site.
The fact is that the very agreement signed by the city with the Ute Tribe in the 1990s is itself very likely invalid because it has the practical and primary effect of advancing Ute tribal religious interests over the secular needs and rights of the owners of the site, the People of Colorado Springs.
However “spiritually significant” any publicly-owned property is to some group of religious people, such considerations cannot, by law, be part of the decision making process of a public board considering limiting access to the property by the public.
The board must reevaluate its decision and permit the archeological investigation, as it said it would, and it must, according to the Supreme Court and the Lemon Test, disregard any religious claims that would interfere with the right of the public to use and enjoy its public property. If the board does not reverse its decision, the city will likely face yet another expensive lawsuit, which it will certainly lose.
This does not mean, however, that qualified archeologists or historians from the Ute Tribe should be excluded from the excavation. They should absolutely be included, so that cultural artifacts associated with their Tribe can be properly analyzed and preserved, and so that their cultural history can be added to the knowledge gained by opening and examining the cavern.
And once the archeological dig has been completed and documented, the cavern should be sealed again in order to protect it from vandalism and theft, which is a legitimate secular government purpose.
But to deny the public the ability to document and know both its own and its Native American Indian cultural heritage based on allegations of “spiritual significance” is most definitely not a legitimate government action.
© 2009 Altnews
Why am I not surprised at how extreme Seth’s Libertarian philosophy goes, even to the these historic preservation issues.
Lets see. Unless the Taxpayers of Colorado Springs are asked by separate ballot issue whether they should ‘pay for’ the repair of the Bancroft Cabin owned by the City of Colorado Springs it should be just left to rot into dust.
So why should I not ask why the cost of keeping and ‘preserving’ the physical copies of the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution held in the National Archives be periodically subjected to a National Vote as to whether it is ‘worth’ taxpayer dollars keeping them? (and don’t tell me that every time that question was asked it would always be ‘yes.’)
I guess I adhere to my ‘principled pragmatism’ values (yes I have principles about many things – and dont just willy nilly make changes for change sake) rather than what I see is awfully ‘absolutist’ about ‘property rights.’
Tell you what, Seth. I invite you to a program I have been asked by the Board of the Old Colorado City Historical Society to give at 11:00 AM on Friday, January 8th at the History Center (across from Bancroft Park).
It is Titled “Rebirth of Colorado City” Its described by the Society in its newsletter as “Illustrated presentation by Dave Hughes. Looking back to 1975 and the beginnings of the Westside revitalization, to discover the vision and resources that residents and leaders used to create the Historic district as well as improve the Westside neighborhood.”
Now I have not delivered an hour long stand up program on that theme before. I will do a good job at it, for I will include in my power point presentation many before and after photographs over the last 33 years, as well as the economic, cultural, and government philosopy I used, to be credited for leading that successful effort.
I would like to invite you to hear it, probably the last time in my life to sum up my last 35 years efforts to effect beneficial change over a whole section of the city, for at 81 I will probably keel over one of these days.
But I would be very interested in your ‘critique’ of that 35 years of effort – involving community, properties, taxpayer funds, private initiative and investment, volunteerism what you would agree to, what to object to, and how you would want what done differently.
The audience on such a dull subject will not reach more than 50-75 I think, half our members and half from outside. I would not mention your presence, so you could judge what the reaction is, and what questions are asked.
Just show up at 10:30 or so for coffee and cookies.
I just might have one of my sons (just a kid of 55) tend a video camera and ‘web cast’ it for our distant members. In any case, since it will probably be my well-prepared swan song on that subject for a general audience, I will have him tape record it, it will be installed in our historical video tapes online, for all that went on back in 1976-80 is already ‘history’ for any younger generation.
I think there is a substantial difference between preserving what is public property, like the Declaration of Independence, and infringing on a PRIVATE PROPERTY owner’s right to use and dispose of his or her property without interference from those who might wish to place their own value on the property of another.
The very essence of the right to property is sovereignty over that property, and the very essence of uncompensated regulatory takings is when the community values the property of the private individual and seeks to restrain the owner’s use and enjoyment in order to fulfill the needs and desires of the community.
As Emeritus Professor of Law Howard Klemme of the University of Colorado Law School puts it, an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use occurs when the government forces the owner to become an “involuntary good Samaritan.”
When the government engages in some preventive regulation, such as building codes and zoning laws, its purpose is to prevent harm to others through the use of private property. On the other hand, historic preservation laws that impose restrictions or prohibitions on private property are redistributive in nature, because they seek to provide for public use or enjoyment that which the public does not own.
One may argue that it is important to preserve historical structures, and government may do so, but only by buying the structure and providing the owner just compensation. Why should the individual who owns a historic structure be burdened with the financial loss and regulations that serve the interests and desires of the public to enjoy the historic structure? Why is this not a burden that is properly laid on the backs of all of the public, through action in eminent domain with just compensation?
I have no objection to private, volunteer efforts at historic preservation. I do have a problem with historic preservation ordinances that inhibit the property owner’s ability to use and enjoy his property to the same extent that others are permitted to do so. I think that such laws are unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional.
Don’t know if I can make it to the meeting, but I’ll keep it in mind, and I thank you for your many years of volunteer work.
I just don’t agree that government can or should impose such laws on those who object.
Now here is one I would like Seth’s comments or conservative ‘position’ on. It relates directly to that city owned historic Cabin in Bancroft Park.
About 20 years after Thayer Tutt funded the repairs for the Cabin while the City funded the improvements in the Park, the Cabin was getting so much use during our revitalization of Old Colorado City it was deteriorating again. Splashing water on the paver stones the city put around the cabin was rotting out the bottom logs. The heavy use came largely because Bancroft Park, the Cabin, the Gazebo, and the Bandshell was the ONLY entertainment center in Old Colorado City commercial district.
So as a representative of the Historical Society I asked the City to repair the Cabin it owns. The answer was “We don’t have any money, even to get a plan for the repairs needed.”
So I first went to the Colorado State Historical Fund, ALL of whose money come from the taxes on Gambling in Cripple Creek and Central City/Blackhawk, and landed a no-match-required $5,000 Planning grant.
The City used it to get a specialist to come up with the plan. Which said it would take at least $50,000 to restore the Cabin.
Ok. but when, after a year, nothing happened I badgered the Park Staff to FIX THAT CABIN before it starts falling down and would be lost. They said, again, they had no money to do the work.
I said you can get a State Historical Fund grant to do that work.
They said, no they can’t. IF they get a Grant from the State Historical Fund, under the Tabor Amendment (Bruce’s doing) they would have to LOWER their budget the exact equal to the grant – they still couldn’t do it.
So, angry (at Bruce and Tabor), I asked “Do I have to bail out the city for the 3d time?” They asked how. I said I will get the Old Colorado City Historical Society – at very substantial fiduciary risk to its small treasury – to be the GRANT APPLICANT. Bruce can’t tell us what to do. You, the City have to come up with the 25% match the State Requires. While we OCCHS makes the contract, pays for the work, supervises the contract work, answers to the State which has to approve it.
So the deal was made. In the end the project cost $91,267 in total. $68,450 from the State History Fund, $22,817 from the City. (the cabin had to be craned off the property, the undersurface water had to be dealt with, logs replicas replaced, etc.) From Thayer Tutt’s $400 in 1929 to $91,000 in 2003. (he’s turning in his grave)
And we did all the accounting for the project (catching errors made by the state in the process. Our real cost was $100 for a bank account and a whole lot of ‘volunteer’ work, just to make up for what the paid city staff should have been doing.
So good old Bruce caused us to have to stand on our head in order to get a piece of City property maintained – which given its age couldn’t wait forever,
Well, the Libertarian in me says that you did almost the right thing. Rather than having the state fund the restoration however, the people of Colorado Springs should have been solicited directly to donate to the restoration. The benefit of this method is it constitutes a direct referendum on the value of the public property involved to the community. Libertarians have no problem with voluntary donations, but if the public no longer values a particular public asset, be it historical or otherwise, it’s not up to the government to force them to pay to preserve or maintain it.
In short, if the value of the cabin to the community is minimal, and the community is unwilling to donate to preserve and restore it, then it must be allowed to decay and eventually disappear. This is within the rights and powers of the People, and can be expressed to its representatives, who are obligated to obey those dictates.
All such historical artifacts are evanescent, and while preservation of historical artifacts is generally a good thing, the impetus to “preserve” things is very often used, by both historical preservationists and municipalities to grossly interfere with and infringe upon the private property rights of citizens who happen to own, in particular, houses that are deemed by someone to be of “historical value.”
The number of egregious abuses of “preservation” ordinances is beyond counting, and it’s a reprehensible exercise in selfish interference with the rights of the individuals who actually own the home. I despise “historic preservation” laws and districts almost beyond measure because of the innate arrogance of those who would substitute their judgment over the rights of the property owner for no better reason than that they feel the structure is “important.”
My “conservative” stance on historic preservation in general is that if the public (or some group) wants some historical object preserved, it is compelled by the Fourth Amendment to purchase the object at fair market value, if (and ONLY IF) the owner is willing to sell it to begin with, in a completely voluntary and uncoerced transaction, rather than using the force of law to infringe on the individual’s right to do with his own property as he wishes. In my view, the desires of historic preservationists never, ever outweighs the fundamental property rights of the owner.
So, while I’m glad the cabin has been preserved, and it appears that a state grant from gambling money that is by law directed to such efforts is at least within the bounds of decent conduct, and I can’t find much objection because the cabin was already owned by the city, and city employees have a duty to preserve and protect public property to protect the financial and cultural interests of the public, I strongly argue against empowering local preservationists by passing laws that make it possible for them, through the government, to infringe on private property rights.
And yes, I know the Supreme Court’s stance on this, and I strongly disagree with their rationale.
Ha, at one point in the discussion with the Board about the design of the Monument, one astute member leaned over toward the Chairman who had been second guessing a number of items in ts design, and said “Remember, this is a private GIFT to the City!”
Sure was. And as Curt Neely wanted me to also point out, that even that 1859 Cabin, next to the space where some kind of monument would eventually go, was a ‘Gift’ to the City by Thayer Tutt (the old one, now gone. He saved it from destruction in 1929 (His father said that cabin was the ‘most important building in all El Paso County). Bought it for $400 and it sat on the Golf Course until 1959, when he let it be moved, for a year, to the Capitol Grounds in Denver for the Centennial of Colorado, then moved it back and gave it to the City in its current Bancroft Park location.
I happened to be the Pikes Peak or Bust by ’76 chairman in 1976 when Tutt complained to me that the City had NOT taken care of that Cabin. I said ‘Thayer, will YOU take care of the Cabin if I get the City to take care of the Park? (the park was badly run down too). He said you got a deal. So I went quietly to the Park Board and City Council and said ‘You have kicked a gift horse in the mouth. Tutt – El Pomar’
They almost panicked, put $60,000 into the Park to fix it up, I did the work to get a plan and bid on the cabin – $7,590. When the Park Budget was approved that December, I sent the ‘El Pomar’ grant request for that amount – which Thayer approved. So the Cabin got fixed the FIRST time – in 1977.
Let me detail the ‘prior’ case to the Cave matter, of Park Board and Staff ‘Political Correctness’ which warped accurate local history and alerted me to the city’s tilt.
To make a long story short, in 2009 I designed the 8 panels, representing the 8 distinctive periods of 150 years of Colorado City’s and Westside History which were to be engraved on the four faces of the 6 foot, beautiful Rocky Mountain rose granite Sesquicentennial Monument. Which our society raised money for, while the local and national economy were tanking. To GIVE to the City in Bancroft Park next to the 1859 Pioneer Cabin. A very generous gift by a very small organization which, far more that the Pioneer’s Museum with its $1.3 million budget EVER did for the Westside or its Colorado City history.
One of the panels portrays the experience Colorado City pioneers had with Indians between founding in 1859 and 1869. Knowing full well from my studies of early Colorado that it, and Colorado City, experienced Indian depredations, 18 local (and later prominent men like Irving Howbert) fought at Sand Creek, – fact the two young 12 and 8 year old Robbin’s boys and young Charlie Everhart were not only killed by the Arapahoe plains Indians in 1868 (he was scalped too) BUT their bodies were laid out right in that city owned Cabin in 1868 for the pioneers to see. That’s fact. We own the original hand written manuscript describing it by one of the pioneers who told of it in 1934.
But also, the Ute Indians, who traversed Ute Pass, were friendlier (though testy Chief Colorow once threatened the townsfolk if he did not get flour for his tribe – which, fearful, they gave him) TWICE camped – in 1866 and 1867 right next to Colorado City folks across Fountain Creek. Later both Chief Ouray and Chipeta visited Colorado City often..
So I insisted that the one panel, rather than – which it could have been – named ‘Indian Wars’ – simply was titled ‘Indians’ 1866-1867′, And the image is of tipis and accurate portrayals of Ouray and Chipeta. And the original PROPOSED TEXT said:
1866-1867
INDIANS
(art work of Utes and Chiefs)
” SEVERAL TRIBES PASSED THROUGH COLORADO CITY REGULARLY UP UTE PASS TO SOUTH PARK. DURING THE HARSH WINTER, FRIENDLY UTES ENCAMPED AT THEIR TRADIONAL SITE ON FOUNTAIN CREEK, NEXT TO COLORADO CITY.
THE HOSTILE INDIANS WERE ON THE PLAINS”
Believe it or NOT, the Park Staff objected to that LAST LINE. NOT Politically Correct! Which was absolutely accurate, and reflected a great problem for not only Colorado City, with kids killed there, but also in the Black Forest and down Fountain Creek to Fountain area where scores of killings and depredations by Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians took place. And was even the proximate reason why Col Chivington was ordered by the US Army to ‘punish’ the Cheyenne at Sand Creek, FAR MORE A BATTLE than a Massacre 24 Union Soldiers killed and 52 wounded (purportedly by those ‘defenseless Indian women and children). And 18 Colorado City men were there in the 3d Colorado Cavalry!
I refused to participate in the meetings between two women of our Historical Society and Matt Mayberry, purportedly THE regional historian, and the Park Staff who had ‘issues’ with the design of the Monument which they would have to ‘approve’ before ‘permitting’ the monument to be placed in ‘their’ park.
So the monument was built, placed, and dedicated right beside that Cabin, missing that last historically accurate statement of fact. It only portrays the politically correct portion of the Indian panel. All warm and fuzzy, NOT reflecting all the Pioneer Realities of Colorado City and early El Paso County.
And you, Seth, would never know that history if I didn’t tell you.
As Curt Neely, who shares my disgust at the supression by BOTH the Pioneer’s Museum AND Penrose Library of the full, unvarnished history of the region, even points out that the latest extensive scholarship by Greg Michno on ‘Sand Creek – a Military Perspective’ has been put in the ‘Special Collections’ – not for general public circulation – at Penrose. And the Pioneer’s Museum has gone out of its way to perpetuate the Myth of the Massacre at Sand Creek. No wonder they refused to republish the land mark 1925 300 page “A Lifetime of Memories in the Pikes Peak Region” by the second most prominent man in the Pikes Peak Region – Irving Howbert. Until our Society did three years ago, educators, school children and the public were exposed ONLY to the political correct side of local history.
Which is why we have, not just a separate historical society, but an Independent (from the Pioneer’s Museum) History Center, Museum, Research Library. Which pursues and displays accurate local history.
Fascinating information, Dave, thanks for posting it. You are quite right that “political correctness” runs rampant when it comes to interactions between settlers and the Native American Indians.
The gravest concern I have is that the park staff engaged in unlawful government censorship of a privately-constructed monument, paid for with private dollars. They had no legal authority to render judgment on the content of the panels or demand that they be censored or changed as a condition of permitting the installation of the monument.
If the park administrators had approved the general design and placement of the monument prior to reviewing the historical claims on the monument, their actions were clearly unconstitutional, in my opinion, and the Historical Society would be fully justified in filing a lawsuit against the city for that action, in which I, were I in charge, would demand that the censored panel be replaced with one with the historically accurate language that the Historical Society itself approved.
The law is quite clear on this matter, government agents may not engage in censorship, even when it comes to public monuments donated by private groups. This is why the Supreme Court has several times ruled that Ten Commandments monuments placed on public property, but not at public expense, are (or may be depending on the specific circumstances) permissible religious expressions.
A historical monument that expresses historical facts is simply beyond their editorial control, and they should have known that.
As for the Cave, I may detail here the evidence that the Garden of the Gods NEVER were ‘sacred’, there has never been found a single marking on any stone there that can be attributed to Native Americans, there was no ‘burial grounds’ (which does have federal protection), that there is incontrovertible evidence that nothing ‘Native American’ – either markings, or artifacts were ever found inside the cave cavity – testified to as late as 1963 by a Park Employee – arrowhead collector – who was tasked to seal up the cave a second time after it was opened – city saying ‘eroded’ but we know it was by two teens who broke in, and one heads a large company in town.
The whole matter of a relationship between Native American is a myth that was invented by the City of Colorado Springs at the turn of the century when it paid Utes from the reservation to come to Colorado Springs (on Palmer’s D&RG RR) a ‘perform’ for the benefit of Tourist during an economic bad time! Even the photos and stories of the ‘ceremony’ they had, called Shan Kive (loosly translated ‘Heap big fun’ bears no relationship to anything they historically did from the time the Lawrence Party got here in 1858.
And as an historical of early (1861) El Paso County, the original Colorado City, and the ‘Westside’ after annexation in 1917. there is not a scrap of evidence that the Ute’s ever used the GG (as distinct from the Manitou Springs) for anything except a pass-through space.
The myth has turned into some tribal ‘agreement’, then a never written down (the Master Plan for the Garden has not a word about any restrictions for Native American purposes even after the ‘meeting in the early 90s) and now its hard and fast policy.
Well, the City has now started a ‘precedence’ that even Mayberry mentioned might force the City to get the ‘approval’ of Native Americans every time they want to modify their ‘park’ property,
Bah, Humbug.
There is more to it than that.
I agree that a dangerous precedent was created, even if by implication. Fortunately, the nature of the comments by the Board in denying the request for archeological examination provide the perfect “out” for the Board and the City from any such agreement, because the precedents regarding church/state separation are quite clear, and Native American Indian religions are every bit as much “church” related as any other.
There is a particular blindness and unspoken politically-correct agenda at work when it comes to “indigenous people” and how us “newbies” must relate to them. This often results in an unconstitutional and illegal preference being given to Native American Indian culture, religion and belief. That cannot be allowed to take precedence over the rights of the People, as a whole, to use and enjoy their lands.
Ok, that’s fine Seth. I figured you were somehow part of the Gazette crew. No need to check your credentials. But when you referred to me in another item about Stormwater as a “gadfly’ I wasn’t sure whether you were local or a ‘distant’ commentator. As the saying goes, ‘On the Internet nobody knows whether or not you are a dog’ – or on mars.
You can readily check my ‘credentials’ at http://www.oldcolo.com from which over a very long life, and as a native, I march to my own political drum with opinions that stem from my conviction that there are three, not two political poles to choose from. Either Left, or Right – and the one that I think makes the trains run on time – Pragmatism. I am pragmatic. If it works it is true.
I have been wary of the Gazette’s editorial Libertarianism ever since I was the architect, after I retired, of the successful pragmatic revitalization of ‘Old Colorado City’ in the 1970s using a combination of Federal loans (Bloc Grant) and loan guarantees (SBA), very small business entrepreneurship in a city which worships and fruitlessly (over the long haul) courts big businesses, historic preservation in a city which ignores it unless it is a legacy of General Palmer who hated Colorado City, and a large component of pro-bono volunteerism. Succeeding in an area of town so blighted that the vaunted private sector banks had ‘red lined it from loans’ 50% of the commercial buildings were vacant, and the city had to step in before it became a total ghetto.
And while we were making it work, no less than the Gazette Telegraph’s Editor, Maurice Whitney, did us no favors by editorially (I still have the key editorial) predicting that the Old Colorado City ‘city project’ would fail because it had ‘government money’ in it. Nothing like having the biggest newspaper in town bad mouth you.
Then, hypocritically, after it started prospering, not failing, the GT publisher pressed its adverting staff to hustle there because the Sun (Democratic paper) who supported us, was making plenty of sales in the ‘new-old’ business area. (That so ticked me off that I called the Publisher – and said that after giving us no support for years as a ‘community’ project, and editorially bad mouthing us that he NOW wanted to cash in on our success – that I would kick any GT reporter or ad man out of my office until I saw change)
When ‘conservatism’ become just ‘provincialism’ I bail – or sound off.
Yes, Minutes exist. In fact voice tape recordings of the session – and all three previous sessions exist.
But there is far, far more to this issue over the denial by the city of our proposed short term (maybe 3 days) opening and closing of the Cave than just whether it is ‘illegal’ or not.
Its worse – it is City of Colorado Springs at its Politically Correct and Historical Revisionist worst.
Not the first time the Park Advisory Board and Staff has chosen to warp the historical record of what the originial Colorado City went through with the Indians, both peaceful and hostile, that Colorado Springs never went through. The first time was when it, over my objections, ‘censored’ content on the $40,000 Sesquicentennial Monument that our society designed, paid for in its entirely, and made as a gift to the City on the Founders Day celebration August 6th, 2009.
If I knew exactly who Seth Richardson was – an editorial staff member of the Gazette – or just a Guest Columnist from the Great Beyond, I would amplify on the matter.
Thanks for the information Dave. I’m hardly surprised however, since the Parks Advisory Board I’m sure would, like most city booster organizations, like to present Colorado Springs in the best possible light.
This is no excuse for historic revisionism, however. Historical facts, good or bad, must be preserved and available to all, in the interests of good science and open government. The idea that a legitimate archeological investigation and documentation of this important cultural resource is being prevented for “spiritual,” or for that matter public relations reasons is simply intolerable.
Feel free to contact me directly by e-mail if you like at Seth.Richardson@Gazette.com
Disclosure: I am not a paid employee of Freedom Communications or the Gazette, I am an independent freelance journalist and editorialist for Altnews, which is an associate member of the Colorado Press Association. My on-line column is sponsored by the Gazette editorial section. You may contact Wayne Laugesen, editorial page Editor if you have any questions about my credentials.
thanks to seth Richardson for this excellent text. I notice it’s copyrighted.
but I’d like to chide or threaten Colo. Spgs. City Council with it, asking for reversal of Parks Advisory Board’s P. C. decision. So can I “fair use” you column?
I was a team member of the exploration party… the retired brick mason et. al. and sometimes Safety Man designated to punch the hole back into the cave.
And I promised Paul Butcher that I would reseal it: “I don’t leave until the plug is restored”. Paul seemed relieved at that, at the August meeting.
Eugene RedHawk apparently was known as Average Joe Citizen until injun stuff got trendy, then he got bullying with shame and guilt and controversy to become Mr. Oft Quoted Mr. Big Shot. He sarcastically accused us of merely wanting to see if “Kilroy was here” inside the cave, much to the bemusement of the Parks Advisory Board. I say no, Mr. Redhawk. I have a pretty reliable tip that Arthur Gibson’s name is scratched in to the cave wall just inside the entrance. Arthure’s fought at Sand Creek Battal and according to his descendent kept the retrieved pale face scalps locked in his business safe until he died. Arthur’s dad Thomas H. Gibson was a co-founder of the Rocky Mountain News along with along with John Dailey and Wm. M. Byers. Thomas set the type for the Rocky’s first edition in the back of a wagon while traveling toward Denver. They scooped the competition with the first Denver newspaper on the streets by a reported 15 minutes. Thomas later fought in the 1st Colorado Volunteers at Glorieta Pass. See http://www.history.oldcolo.com.
Colo Spgs Culture Czar Matt Mayberry told me in front of the Parks meeting that there was no mention in the minutes of the 1990′s Conclave held at Glen Eyrie ceeding control of Garden of the Gods to the indians. He promised to get me a copy of the minutes. Thus far, he hasn’t delivered on it. Maybe he’s peeved at me for voting against the recent property tax increase and getting my first ever
letter-to-editor published. So us Old Colorado City Historical Society whitey’s got kicked off Dave Hughes Sesquicentenniel cave project by tax funded P. C. radicals. Or so it seems.
My childhood indian chief was Chickasaw. see my sketch of him in Your Hub, and reprinted in 11/29/07 Ranchland News.
Curt Neeley, Native-born Colorado Springs-an American
You are welcome to print out the article and distribute it to the Board if you like, and thanks for your comments.
By the way, that meeting was a public meeting, so if minutes exist, you can demand access to them under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) and the custodian of the records is compelled to give you access. Do a Google on Colorado Open Records Act and you’ll get a lot of information on how to file a CORA request for public documents.
Please let me know how it goes, and if you have trouble, perhaps I can help.
Yep. Agreed.