I am my own Neighbor

The new wind energy application by Iberdrola uses a ‘cookie cutter’ approach to delineate carefully selected sub-parcels of land within legal parcels for a Conditional Use Permit. The intent is to deny neighbors their rights to a protest petition, a right they have already successfully exercised under zoning law.

The stated intent of zoning is the protection of the property rights and quality of life of all residents. There is a statutory requirement in Kansas for inclusion of a protest petition clause in all county zoning regulations. It is implicit in zoning regulations that CUP applications apply to complete legal parcels, or the protest petition statute would be pointless. Those seeking to host turbines are now essentially claiming to be their own neighbors, and trying to deny adjacent landholders their legal status as neighbors. Is this not unscrupulous?

Nowhere in our zoning regulations does it say anything about protecting people’s right to profit from any development that might happen to come along, as Gene Bittel would have us believe. He expressed concern about passing wind energy regulations that might harm someone’s (or his) ability to profit from turbines. He fails to understand that the purpose of zoning is exactly the opposite – to protect existing real estate investments and quality of life from unsuitable developments that will detract from their value and harm innocent people.

It is clear from the folly of the last zoning board meeting that at least four, if not five, of the board members are dead set on gutting the ordinance submitted by concerned residents to regulate wind energy. They won’t take an oath of office (as required by law) or publicly disclose their conflicts of interest (as explicitly stated in the zoning regulations they themselves adopted) because they are all planning to profit from wind turbines however they possibly can. They have consistently represented their own families’ financial interests instead of the interests of the people of Ellis County. And they certainly don’t want to change the 1,000 ft. setback because that would spoil their plans to eliminate a protest petition by pulling turbines back just a bit more than 1,000 ft. from their property lines.

Iberdrola’s new application seeks to circumvent the spirit and intent of zoning law and will certainly be vulnerable to legal challenge in district court. If the County Commission grants them a waiver for early submission and then approves this application, they will be exposing the county to the same legal action that will target Iberdrola.


Posted by J.P. Michaud

Link to comments. Reprinted with permission of the author

oh sheesh..... more from JP...... I am so tired of hearing from that guy , does he have a life besides writing about the evils of windpower ???? Where was his uproar over the gas powered plant?

This is similar to a current situation in which a church bought property in a business district and now because of a law that restricts a bar from opening within 1000 feet of a church, school, library , a person that wants to open a legitimate tax paying business running a restaurant/bar in that business district is running into problems getting opened. The church should have never been allowed to open there in the first place, now they want to dictate what is allowed to open. If that same rule had been followed in Hays, Gellas would have never been allowed to open, the same would hold true for the Fox Pavillion because of their proximity tp the Hays library. The housing development west of Hays should not be allowed to restrict the wind development from going forth. If you moved to the country for the scenery , then you should pay the neighbors whose land you enjoy the scenery of for the privilege of seeing the land as is. Otherwise, they should be able to lease out THEIR property for the windmills which they have the right to make money from.

thats my view on this

So, if I bought the property next to your house and wanted to put in a packing house complete with kill floor and the facilities to run 100 head a day through, you would be OK with that? We would be storing the offal outside untill the rendering truck shows up.

LukeTHr wrote:

The housing development west of Hays should not be allowed to restrict the wind development from going forth. If you moved to the country for the scenery , then you should pay the neighbors whose land you enjoy the scenery of for the privilege of seeing the land as is. Otherwise, they should be able to lease out THEIR property for the windmills which they have the right to make money from.

The zoning laws enacted in Ellis County give the neighbors exactly that right. One neighbor can not stop a development, but a majority can. Now the wind company is trying to rewrite the rules for the county. The way they are going about it, there will be a lawsuit.

I know, you are thinking there would be a lawsuit anyway. Prolly so. But doing it this way, if the county allows it, would include the county and those representing the county in the lawsuit.

It going to cost us a lot. Hiring lawyers for 3 commissioners and 9 zoning board members adds up real fast.

This whole thing reminds me of democrat verses republican. There is no right or wrong side anymore. It's just become a struggle to see who will get to screw who.

I gotta agree with Luke here on the property issue though. I might not like something my nieghbor builds on his ground, but it is (his) ground. All due respects to both sides in the issue, but I think the biggest reason some object to the turbines is because they got left out of the cash. So now they're looking for any excuse they can find to stop them out of revenge against their neighbors who tried to keep the money to themselves.

justoo.. I don't like the feedlots stinking things up. I didn't like the Ellis Rendering plant ruining the scenery on the way into town or the smell. I'd rather my neighbor not do lots of things. But I'd consider the possibility that the pro-turbine guys might have a sense of humor like mine. If I wanted them and my neighbors tried to stop me I might paint them all pink with purple polka dots.

If the zoning rules did not exist, I would have to agree with you. But we have zoning, and I don't care what they say, zoning came in when it did because of and for wind power.

They should be held to the rules that they wanted. Period.

It's my understanding that the zoning issues are being debated and any person on any kind of a city or county board or commission will now be required to take the oaths. Kinda curious why anyone thinks an oath makes someone more honest though.

Doesn't make you honest. You either are or you aren't.
But if you refuse to take an oath to uphold the law and respect the constitution when your position requires you to take that oath, it makes me a bit more than suspect of their intentions and honesty.

I know of at least one instance where the members of a board never knew they were supposed to take an oath. Are you sure that was known in this case?

That may have been the case at the beginning. But they most certainly do know now and still won't.

Says a lot about the character of these characters.

Guess I don't follow the whole thing as closely as some of you. Where'd you hear that any public official refused to take an oath? It's my understanding that's now mandatory on any board.

The Zoning board has never taken an oath. There is no record of it. It was pointed out to them. They have so far refused to correct the matter. They say they don't have to. The Kansas Attorney General says they do.

Within the last month I was told it was going to be required for all boards and committees in the county.

Now you know why you heard that. And I am glad that they have to. Now we need to figure out how to get them to recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest.

When it comes to the windfarms I'm afraid the only way you'll get a group that no one will claim conflict of interest would be if all of them were from Ethiopia. This whole thing has just become a big fued.

Justoo wrote:

So, if I bought the property next to your house and wanted to put in a packing house complete with kill floor and the facilities to run 100 head a day through, you would be OK with that? We would be storing the offal outside untill the rendering truck shows up.

There are huge differences between a packing plant and wind generators. Let's not try to compare one to another here. The employer that JP works for is guilty of creating such a stench on the south of Hays that I find far more offensive than any windfarm will ever be. This is where I find his position to be quite comical and without merit.

First off, I live in the middle of town, not 3 miles out in the country, but if the area I was in allowed such a thing, I guess I would have a few options. A; just live with it: B; move: C; Spend a fortune fighting it: I don't have a lot money to give to an attorney or to buy billboards to place around in an effort to sway public opinion, so that is not an option for me.
I guess I could try and sell if i chose to. But most likely , in the case of the windfarm, I would not have any great problem with it. but hey, thats just my view on things.

Justoo wrote:

If the zoning rules did not exist, I would have to agree with you. But we have zoning, and I don't care what they say, zoning came in when it did because of and for wind power.

They should be held to the rules that they wanted. Period.

You don't think it might be possible zoning may have something to do with all the housing developments in the country too???

My son and I visited the turbine in Quinter, It's about 50 feet tall. Neither one of us could bring ourselves within 15 feet of it. But givin the the alternative, we colud live with that.

Why couldn't you get any closer than 15'?

LukeTHr wrote:

There are huge differences between a packing plant and wind generators. Let's not try to compare one to another here. The employer that JP works for is guilty of creating such a stench on the south of Hays that I find far more offensive than any windfarm will ever be. This is where I find his position to be quite comical and without merit.

Is that right now? I'd have to say that "aroma" in Hays on a warm summer eve is quite a bit more offensive than a windmill.

LukeTHr wrote:

but if the area I was in allowed such a thing, I guess I would have a few options.

What if the area you lived in did not allow something you couldn't or wouldn't live next to. And what if someone asked for a special permit to allow it next to you.

I guess I'm missing something justoo since I don't keep up on this, so I got a serious question. Were the pastures and fields adjacent to these homeowners zoned for residential? They allow cattle, oilwells, and the use of herbicides and pesticides on those neighboring grounds that are forbidden in town. I see agricultural ground mixed with commercial use and residential ground all the time with things like oil and propane tanks or other facilities right in the middle of fields and pastures, as well as right beside homes. What is it besides the windmills being an eyesore to some that would require re-zoning?

It is an industrial operation. If there was no zoning there would be no mechanism to control any land owners actions. Even if it affected the value. With zoning, a property owner has a right to protect the value of his property. Unless unscrupulous parties try to circumvent the law.

Actually everything about this mess really pisses me off. When they passed zoning, part of the law was that the county had to prepare a comprehensive plan to support the zoning laws. The state of Kansas encourages the development of a comprehensive plan by all counties that adopt zoning. A zoning board without a comprehensive plan is like a train without rails to guide it. It quickly becomes a train wreck because it has no clear objectives and no guidelines to follow.

Zoning regulations are merely tools for advancing the comprehensive plan. They are supposedly written with a comprehensive plan in mind. They have not done that either.

So aren't oilwells and pumping units industrial operations too? I see them all over the place.

Most of what you see were put in before zoning was enacted. Any new ones need to be approved one at a time. And on each one the neighbors have the right to protest each one.

I wonder what the wildlife SW of hays thoutght when their land was invaded bu humans.

Good question nitro, since being a threat to wildlife has been a common complaint about windmills. Which brings up another. If adjoining landowners complained about a housing development lessening the possible uses of their lands, would it matter?

Not picking on you justoo, just trying to decide which, if any landowner should have more rights than the other.

Ratzilla wrote:

Good question nitro, since being a threat to wildlife has been a common complaint about windmills. Which brings up another. If adjoining landowners complained about a housing development lessening the possible uses of their lands, would it matter?

Not picking on you justoo, just trying to decide which, if any landowner should have more rights than the other.

Well, it would appear that a handful of people that own a few acres each with a home and make their living at a job in town have more rights than the people that own hundreds of acres and make their living off the land. Gotta keep that country view pretty ya know....that is, except for the houses and sheds and metal building and such. But don't try to develop any industry in their neighborhood...... unless of course you want to put in more housing for all them rich white folks.

LukeTHr wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

Good question nitro, since being a threat to wildlife has been a common complaint about windmills. Which brings up another. If adjoining landowners complained about a housing development lessening the possible uses of their lands, would it matter?

Not picking on you justoo, just trying to decide which, if any landowner should have more rights than the other.

Well, it would appear that a handful of people that own a few acres each with a home and make their living at a job in town have more rights than the people that own hundreds of acres and make their living off the land. Gotta keep that country view pretty ya know....that is, except for the houses and sheds and metal building and such. But don't try to develop any industry in their neighborhood...... unless of course you want to put in more housing for all them rich white folks.

Esspecially if it provides alternative energy. How dare ye.

There seems to be something about having money that makes individuals want to have everything sanitary looking. They're the ones who think covering their homes and every tree and bush in plain clear Christmas lights looks attractive. But it seems to be more a thing of the moderately wealthy. I notice some of the really rich ones revert back to normal and like colored ones. I guess when you get mega rich you don't have to follow the current cool rich guy trends anymore.

Like the "in thing" of green energy as long it's not not my field ov view?

What's of even more interest is how those with money have the attitude that only their opinion matters and those that earn less money are of less importance

Why didn't J.P. post his own shit here? I didn't realize he needed any help......friggin tool!

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

Why didn't J.P. post his own shit here? I didn't realize he needed any help......friggin tool!

JP, like others, fears opposition?

LukeTHr wrote:

What's of even more interest is how those with money have the attitude that only their opinion matters and those that earn less money are of less importance

Valid question. WHy do Kraus, Bemis , and Gottschalks think that it is important to shove their ideas down our throat?
They wrote the rules for zoning at the Kraus farm. Now they are not happy with the rules and want to bend and twist the rules to their favor.
I know those families have a lot of money, but that should not give them the right to force their will on others.

Ratzilla wrote:

If adjoining landowners complained about a housing development lessening the possible uses of their lands, would it matter?

Not picking on you justoo, just trying to decide which, if any landowner should have more rights than the other.

They have the right to protest the the development while in the permitting stage. Same rights, no more, no less.

What is wrong with this latest application is that they created sub-parcels within the parcels, in effect making them their own neighbors. They believe they have found a way to eleminate any possible protest. In effect, tying the hands of those who should have a right to defend themselves.

Justoo wrote:

If the zoning rules did not exist, I would have to agree with you. But we have zoning, and I don't care what they say, zoning came in when it did because of and for wind power.

They should be held to the rules that they wanted. Period.

I just don't cotton to all this. Too daggone many rules - Ernest T. Bass

Justoo wrote:

So, if I bought the property next to your house and wanted to put in a packing house complete with kill floor and the facilities to run 100 head a day through, you would be OK with that? We would be storing the offal outside untill the rendering truck shows up.

Do we get to cite Eminent Domain? Because it happens all the time. A packing plant is hardly comparable scenario at any rate.

Were these landowners there long before it became trendy to plant developments in the proposed area? ( I would say that was a big YES) What about the rights of the landowners to utilize their property? What about the neighbor's dog leaving big piles of poop and their yard which propagates a healthy fly population that assaults me everytime I walk out our door...do I have the right to tell them they can't have a dog? It's pretty much the same argument. Utilization of property and the right of the owner. When does this nonsense end? How did the greater picture become lost in all of this pettiness? I can't figure this out. A month or so ago there was a rotary drilling for oil on the east end of Hays right next to houses and nobody said a peep. Yet, we have an alternate energy source blowing through here on a daily basis and everyone whines about the cost of energy, yet we want to block this because we're afraid it MIGHT lower our property values?????

The zoning ordinance does not say anything about first one there.
Is your neighborhood zoned to allow dogs?
Those people on the east end of Hays near the drilling rig had every right to file a petition objecting to that activity. They chose not to.

Let's hit the important points. Aside from an oath, which could be widely interpreted depending on it's wording, what is the issue? Are these pro-wind landowners accused of criminal activity by getting zoning rules changed, or just under the table shady business?

If the latter, I'd say it's about sour grapes. If it's about criminal wrongdoing, why the hell are you guys complaining on message boards and blogs instead of staying quiet while your attorneys do the talking?

As I understand it there are 3 groups of people when it comes to the wind farm debate.

The first group is a small group of people that stand to gain A LOT financially, if this wind farm comes to Ellis County, those who have signed easements to have the wind farm located on their property; approximately 20 people. About ½ of these easement signers (property owners) do not live in the county and some of them do not even in the state of Kansas.

The second group would be the neighbors of those that signed the easements who feel as though they are getting shafted by the possibility of loss of property values, shadows being casted by the huge blades, light flickering, noise pollution, view shed, health risks... (about 100 families). Let's not forget about the inconvenience of the construction phase for instance the HUGE trucks and trailers and cranes that will pulverize the rock roads.

Then there is the third group. This is a group of people who are not directly involved with the wind farm but have a lot to say about it (that would seem to be all the rest of those who live in Ellis County {and some that live in surrounding counties}).

Since the second group of people feel as though they are having to give up so much so that the first group can make huge profits, what if everyone in Ellis County had to give a little something in order for this wind farm to enter Ellis County. What if, let’s say, everyone's property taxes went up in Ellis County so that the approximately 20 people can profit would everyone one else think this is such a grand idea and those 20 people should be able to do on there property as they wish?

At several of the Zoning Board Meetings, Chair Gene Bittle said that he would be in favor of having a pot of money set aside in order for the county to purchase the homes of the homeowners who live in the project area. If those opposing landowners who are fed up and feel they want to sell there homes and move out of the project area would put their homes on the market and after "x" amount of time the home did not sell (at the fair market price) then Ellis County would become the proud homeowner of worthless homes. I have a question for Gene and his crew: Where will this “pot of money” come from???????? You know homes are not cheap and there are AT LEAST 100 unhappy homeowners that live in the project area. I know I would not purchase a home that was 1000 feet from a 400 foot turbine and some of these homes are literally surrounded by turbines.

Remember, the electricity that will be produced will be headed to Colorado and not used at all here in Ellis County. Would the third group still be so gung ho to push this through if they knew it would hit them in their own pocket books? Just an observation.

There's a 4th group. Those of us who just want to know why the first two groups can't find a solution to suit them both.

Ratzilla wrote:

Let's hit the important points. Aside from an oath, which could be widely interpreted depending on it's wording, what is the issue? Are these pro-wind landowners accused of criminal activity by getting zoning rules changed, or just under the table shady business?

If the latter, I'd say it's about sour grapes. If it's about criminal wrongdoing, why the hell are you guys complaining on message boards and blogs instead of staying quiet while your attorneys do the talking?

Both. As far as legalities go, they have been made aware of their unlawful activity and given an opportunity to make corrections to bring themselves into compliance. They have declined. What I mention here has all been brought before them and they seem to think the law does not pertain to them.

Justoo wrote:

The zoning ordinance does not say anything about first one there.

It should.

Ratzilla wrote:

There's a 4th group. Those of us who just want to know why the first two groups can't find a solution to suit them both.

It is now and always will be about MONEY!!! GREED!!!!

my2cents wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

There's a 4th group. Those of us who just want to know why the first two groups can't find a solution to suit them both.

It is now and always will be about MONEY!!! GREED!!!!

Kinda like Walmart anf Home Depot.

I guess that's my point here. All I'm seeing so far is business tactics as usual. I can understand not wanting those big bastards right by your home, But I don't see this as being as bad as a city, county, or state just outright taking someones home or business and leveling it to make room for new development, and we've seen that going on for decades.

Ratzilla wrote:

But I don't see this as being as bad as a city, county, or state just outright taking someones home or business and leveling it to make room for new development, and we've seen that going on for decades.

What do you think Eminent Domain is? If that is what they want to do there is nothing stopping them. Those who are being ridiculed the most are only trying to protect what they have already invested just as you and others have done when buying your homes or a parcel of land that perhaps you were hoping some day would APPRECIATE and NOT DEPRECIATE.

Those who snuck this project in (you know who you are) that is to include the landowners that signed easements all those years ago (hush, hush!!) did not and do not care about there neighbors and so called friends and now that their neighbors are crying fowl! they want to call them NIMBY’s and poke fun at them for trying to save what they have.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

my2cents wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

There's a 4th group. Those of us who just want to know why the first two groups can't find a solution to suit them both.

It is now and always will be about MONEY!!! GREED!!!!

Kinda like Walmart anf Home Depot.

Yes, but we all have a choice to shop there or go elsewhere. Those who have had this project literally shoved down their throats were not given a choice except to live with it or leave what you have come to know as the life that you had built for your family. Sorry, but I do not believe that is right.