DENVER, Jan. 22, 2:15 p.m. – The waiting has begun for the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision on whether Telluride has the constitutional right to condemn land outside its boundaries and protect the valley floor from development by the San Miguel Valley Corporation.

A court spokesman said the high court’s seven justices would know within hours of Tuesday morning’s oral arguments which way they are leaning, but it usually takes from two to four months for a formal decision to be written and rendered.

“If I had to guess, I’d say we probably ended up having a majority of judges on our side,” said Telluride Mayor Stu Fraser, one of about three dozen resident who made the 360-mile, six-hour-plus drive to Denver for one hour’s worth of arguments.

The group included nine Telluride High School juniors and seniors who were accompanied by their principal, Alex Carter.

“They were prepared to know they would not be getting a decision today,” Carter said of the students.

Jane Hickcox of the Valley Floor Preservation Partners also was optimistic judging from the questions the seven justices asked of the lawyers.

“I’m feeling very confident,” Hickcox said. “We all have our observations but I see it as 5-2.”

Court spokesman Robert McCallum cautioned against trying to second guess the justices based on the questions they asked.

“Reading anything into their opinions based on their questions is completely unfounded,” McCallum said. “It’s practically impossible to tell from the questions how they are going to rule.”

SMVC’s lawyer, Denver attorney Darrell Waas, defended the 2004 law passed by the Colorado Legislature that prohibited extra-territorial condemnation of land for open space.  He argued the state has a compelling public policy interest in some cases to override a home rule municipality’s use of eminent domain.

Telluride’s attorney, Leslie Fields, countered with 30 minutes worth of arguments that the state legislature had no right to intervene in the valley floor dispute.

“They can regulate the exercise of that power (of eminent domain) but can’t prohibit home rule cities from exercising their right to condemn,” she said.  “The state has no compelling interest in dictating what property can be condemned and to what purpose.”