Newcomers are not the problem — undisclosed introductions and private influence are
By Roger Rael
The Raton Range
Raton has always welcomed people willing to invest, work and become part of this community. Being born somewhere else does not make anyone an enemy of Raton.
But residents have every right to ask who keeps introducing outside developers, business owners and investors to city officials — and what happens after those introductions are made.
The question is not where somebody was born. The question is who opened the door, what promises were discussed and whether the public was ever told.
Former Raton City Manager Pete Kampfer provides an important example. Kampfer came to Raton from Colorado City, Texas, in 2012 and left approximately 13 months later. After his departure, then-Mayor Bobby LeDoux publicly said Kampfer had been the person who brought proposed racino investors to Raton.
That does not prove wrongdoing. It does establish that Kampfer was actively connecting outside investors with Raton.
More than a decade later, Raton is again being approached by outside companies and individuals promoting major projects involving land, electricity, water and public infrastructure. The names and projects change, but the public is often left asking the same questions after decisions have already begun moving forward.
Who made the first telephone call? Who arranged the meeting? Who introduced the developer to the property owner? Who discussed city electricity, water, land or possible incentives? Who stood to profit if the transaction succeeded?
Those are not conspiracy questions. They are basic questions about public accountability.
Shayne Young and his wife brought Moss Adventures to Raton in 2022 after an earlier proposal in Huerfano County, Colorado, was rejected. Young later became president of GrowRaton, placing him in an influential economic-development position.
That history does not prove Pete Kampfer recruited Young, and no public document reviewed by The Raton Range currently establishes such a connection. But Young’s path from a rejected Colorado proposal to a leadership position in Raton deserves to be documented accurately, particularly when GrowRaton is involved in promoting commercial property and economic-development opportunities.
The same standard should apply to every person involved in Raton’s development network. Personal friendships are not automatically improper. Professional connections are not automatically corrupt. But when those relationships overlap with land sales, public utilities, development agreements or major projects, they should be disclosed.
Raton should not have to discover these relationships months or years later.
This is especially important with the proposed data center. The former Kmart property was publicly marketed for redevelopment. Atterix was given six months to study Raton’s suitability for an advanced digital hub. That agreement expired without a publicly released feasibility report answering major questions about electricity, water, soil, drainage, structural conditions or public safety.
Now residents are being asked to believe that nothing moved beyond a feasibility discussion.
Maybe that is true. If so, releasing the communications, introductions and reports should settle the matter.
The Raton Range is not claiming one former city manager secretly controls everything happening in Raton. The available evidence does not support that conclusion.
What the evidence does support is a broader concern: Raton’s economic-development activity appears to depend heavily on a relatively small network of officials, board members, property interests and personal introductions. The public rarely sees that network until controversy erupts.
That must change.
Every major development proposal involving public electricity, water, land, zoning or incentives should include a public disclosure identifying:
Who introduced the developer to Raton.
Who arranged meetings with city officials.
Who owns or represents the proposed property.
Which broker or business could receive compensation.
What personal, professional or financial relationships exist among the participants.
What studies were completed before the proposal reached elected officials.
What information was withheld under confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements.
Newcomers can bring investment, jobs and ideas. They can also bring proposals rejected somewhere else, unrealistic promises or projects that place long-term costs on a community they barely know.
Raton residents should not automatically oppose everyone arriving from outside the city. Neither should they automatically trust every person who arrives carrying a proposal and claiming it will save the community.
The issue is not whether Raton’s door should remain open.
The issue is who keeps opening it, who benefits when they do and why the people who live here are so often the last ones told.
