I am my own Neighbor

Justoo wrote:

If you don't like the rules as written, ask your zone board to change the rules. They can do that.

It's ironic that the zoning rules work when you want them to work. However, when this project was initially proposed there was a huge outcry over how inadequate these same rules were.....

my2cents wrote:

WOW! I really don't know how to respond to that one, except the only really really high that you could be talking about is you. I never said you didn't know how high 400' is. What I said was that unless it is YOUR house that is 2000 ' from these things there really is no way of knowing how you would feel.

It's a big thing about half as tall as the KAYS tower on 27th and Hall with big blades. It will turn and make noises. What else is there to know? We aren't talking about knowing what it's like to spend two years in combat. I've never lived in the Playboy mansion or on the rim of an active volcano, but it doesn't mean I have no idea which would be more to my liking.

my2cents wrote:

I am following the rules and regulations of my township. We ALL burn our trash, therefore, nobody is there to protest.

Once again that sounds like your saying that other guy would make lots of money, but you didn't, so you're going to hold your breath and roll around on the floor till he gives you half. I'm afraid the system doesn't say everyone must profit equally.

Oh, and on the burning thing. Several fires in this county have been caused by trash barrels this year. Even properly screened ones. I look for anything short of specially built incinerators to eventually be outlawed, because I assure you that if a thousand acre fire caused by trash burning destroys a home or two or kills off someones livestock there will be plenty of protest. I've already been hearing property owners caught up in the recent fire NW of Hays are wanting tighter barrel burn restrictions.

It's all about NIMBY, and pissed people who will not profit from it.

Then following the guidelines don't matter?

Depends, have you ever skewed guidlines?

Or laws?

Or rules?

There is a difference between skewing and ignoring.

Kinda like the difference between kinda stopping at a stop sign and blowing through it at twice the speed limit. Subtle differences like that.

No, not stoping is not stoping.

Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. This is Krista Gordon from IBERDROLA RENEWABLES. I have read with interest the recent discussion on this website about wind energy in Ellis County. A couple of weeks ago, I made CDs of the full conditional use permit application for the Hays Wind Project available to the public. I will be happy to send copies to any of the readers or guests of this website. There is no charge. Extensive project information is contained on the CDs. Please simply send an email with your mailing address to hayswind@gmail.com or send a written request to PO Box 864 here in Hays. For those of you with lingering questions about the project (including decommissioning provisions, setbacks, locations of structures, etc.) I encourage you to peruse the information provided from the “horse’s mouth” to avoid speculation. For the many who remain supportive of renewable wind energy, I sincerely thank you. Best to all of you.

Regards,

Krista Gordon
IBERDROLA RENEWABLES

Justoo wrote:

They did not offer 2000' They offered the same 1000' they have always offered.
They did not offer a surety bond for disposal. Only their word. There is nothing there to legally hold them to their word.
The only real change in the newest proposal is that they have disallowed the right to protest the location.


What compromise?

Now you see why I don't like the argument. one side posts something, the other side calls them a liar. And I keep seeing accusations of wrongdoing, but is it one persons idea of morally wrong, or legally wrong? Huge difference there. And I'd like to know where both you and nitro got your totally opposite info on this compromise, or alleged compromise as your varied views dictate.

Much of my information was from the Hays Daily News. I know, my bad. I should use a real source. HDN did not post info on decommissioning until the May 6th issue.

So is denying the neighbors right to protest morally or legally wrong?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

No, not stoping is not stoping.

Then not following the guidelines is not following the guidelines.

Justoo wrote:

Much of my information was from the Hays Daily News. I know, my bad. I should use a real source. HDN did not post info on decommissioning until the May 6th issue.

So is denying the neighbors right to protest morally or legally wrong?

Denying a right to protest would be a legal problem, but I havn't seen info yet to exactly explain this. Could you supply the source of that? Have attorneys stated that there are legality issues here?

Justoo wrote:

So is denying the neighbors right to protest morally or legally wrong?

When does protesting cease in being a useful political tool to insure the civil and legal rights of citizens and just becomes noise?

The 20% protest petition is required by state law. K.S.A. 12-757 states: "f) (1) Whether or not the planning commission approves or disapproves a zoning amendment, if a protest petition against such amendment is filed in the office of the city clerk or the county clerk within 14 days after the date of the conclusion of the public hearing pursuant to the publication notice, signed by the owners of record of 20% or more of any real property proposed to be rezoned or by the owners of record of 20% or more of the total real property within the area required to be notified by this act of the proposed rezoning of a specific property, excluding streets and public ways and property excluded pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the ordinance or resolution adopting such amendment shall not be passed except by at least a 3/4 vote of all of the members of the governing body."

To deny the protest petition by gerrymandering the boundary of the project area to be different then property lines, effectively eliminates the right of protest. Yes, that would be a violation of state law.

There are individuals who serve the public that are not required to take oaths. Is it only political office that requires an oath, elected officials, appointed officials, or all of them? Certain public servants have to sign papers dealing with confidentiality, but not take an oath as such.

I thank you for the legal read about the protest petition. The 2 obvious questions are did those seeking to protest file within 14 days?

Next question is why would a project boundry have to match property lines so long as they are within said property lines that the project will be in? Are you saying that the project area is crossing property lines or not?

Ratzilla wrote:

Next question is why would a project boundry have to match property lines so long as they are within said property lines that the project will be in? Are you saying that the project area is crossing property lines or not?

If the project lines do not match the property lines (as is the case in the request to waive the moratorium) the result is in effect becoming your own neighbor. You deny the neighbors their RIGHT to protest.

United States Constitution

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This action by Iberdrola and their locally stationed "horse's mouth" is an attempt to deny the residents that will abut (and live directly in the middle of) the project their constitutional right to protest (read petition) said action.
Now do you understand why I am so strong on my position? I feel very strongly that those who would deny you your constitutional rights are NOT here to help you.

So you are saying the project surrounds properties not involved? If so, were the surrounded landowners asked to participate, or were they just shut out?

I could argue having the turbines on just one side of you. But if you are saying rural residents could be surrounded by them within a 1/4 mile, I can see a reason for complaint.

Ratzilla wrote:

So you are saying the project surrounds properties not involved? If so, were the surrounded landowners asked to participate, or were they just shut out?

I could argue having the turbines on just one side of you. But if you are saying rural residents could be surrounded by them within a 1/4 mile, I can see a reason for complaint.

Even if they aren't surrounded, can you see a reason to deny them their rights afforded them by the First Amendment.

One individual is completely surrounded. The way the new boundary lines are drawn, he is not allowed to petition his grievances either.

Should the Constitution be thrown out for this project?

Knowing I'm a Constitutionalist minded sort, you know the answer, and are obviously pushing those buttons. But free speech and right to protest does not guarantee you'll be listened to, or succeed if you are. I did ask if there was a petition started within the 14 days as the law posted earlier states. If not, I'm afraid it'll be tough to fight. You say re-zoning stopped the rights of those opposed, and there may be something to that. But when was their original complaint put in the form of a formal petition of protest?

To clarify the situation and answer your questions.
When the wind farm was initially applied for, the neighbors did file a petition in a timely fashion. The law states they needed the owners of 20% of the property for a legal petition. They acquired over 40% even after a number of them were disallowed on technicalities. This eventually resulted in the moratorium on the wind farm application for one year.
Iberdrola could request a waiver from the moratorium if they had substantial changes in the application. So they redrew the lines in the application so that the neighbors were not allowed to protest. Not even those who were completely surrounded are given the right to protest.
Rezoning did not stop the citizens rights. Iberdrolas application that has most recently been proposed is what is denying constitutional rights.

I've also heard from someone else on these same points justoo. I'm still unclear on just how a landowner can be surrounded by this and have no right to protest.

Thank you justoo and jschmeidler for putting this in simple language so that we can all understand the plight of those living in the project area as well as the government flaws of our county.

Ratzilla wrote:

I've also heard from someone else on these same points justoo. I'm still unclear on just how a landowner can be surrounded by this and have no right to protest.

I would imagine that if the county government allows this travesty to occur as written the courts will be the "deciders" as george b calls them.

my2cents wrote:

Thank you justoo and jschmeidler for putting this in simple language so that we can all understand the plight of those living in the project area as well as the government flaws of our county.

What plight?

Viewing the boundries of the project do not indicate where the turbines are to be placed.

I hear outcry of the First Amendment, yet alone the Constitution. Where was the taxation outcry over the "Home Depot" project?

Freedom of Speach is interperative and selective in today's world. Much like the Bible. Anymore, neither represent their original context for which they were written.

So hail society.

I have a feeling that it's not so much of who's doing what, but why. I get this sense that there may have been bad blood between certain parties before this wind project began. I have also been told that many landowners in the SW corner might welcome a project like this. That is a very large area with almost no homes, or even roads, and there's alot of high hills. Maybe accessibility, or lack of, with heavy equipment is a factor here. I still just get a feeling there's an untold story here that's led up to alot of the problems.

Ratzilla wrote:

So you are saying the project surrounds properties not involved? If so, were the surrounded landowners asked to participate, or were they just shut out?

I could argue having the turbines on just one side of you. But if you are saying rural residents could be surrounded by them within a 1/4 mile, I can see a reason for complaint.

One simple solution to this in the future is to change zoning so as to not allow selling of small acreage plots to homeowners. If ground is classified as agriculture it should not be allowed to broken into smaller plots for non-ag uses. As it stands now someone can buy an acre or two, put a house on it, then raise hell about how the farmer across the road uses his pasture. If they would only allow about 40 or 60 acres per house a lot of this wouldn't be an issue.

I agree with that Luke. I figure if a guy sets up houskeeping in the country, he should expect anything could pop up across the road. I feel maybe some anti-wind landowners were treated unfairly, but I also feel it very unfair to own 3 acres and expect to control 1200 that your neighbor owns.

What about the landowners who's family's have lived in this location for the past 100 years, or even more?

There are a number of those folks affected by Iberdola's proposal. Some homes are surrounded.

Are they and their families any less important than the people who want it here? You tell me!

The 43%+ protest area last summer that ended up denying their first application didn't include just small parcels of landowners. There was (IS!) some significant area owned by those who oppose this!

Ratzilla wrote:

I agree with that Luke. I figure if a guy sets up houskeeping in the country, he should expect anything could pop up across the road. I feel maybe some anti-wind landowners were treated unfairly, but I also feel it very unfair to own 3 acres and expect to control 1200 that your neighbor owns.

It's all about who makes the $$.

One thing I feel safe in saying is, no matter what the outcome, there has been and will continue to be a division in the county that will last for decades. People are becoming too stubborn nowdays to get past this and get back to being friends. The hostility this is generating is going to make life miserable for everyone involved and it will affect the county beyond those involved.

Sadie wrote:

What about the landowners who's family's have lived in this location for the past 100 years, or even more?

There are a number of those folks affected by Iberdola's proposal. Some homes are surrounded.

Are they and their families any less important than the people who want it here? You tell me!

The 43%+ protest area last summer that ended up denying their first application didn't include just small parcels of landowners. There was (IS!) some significant area owned by those who oppose this!

If you have family that has lived in the area for 100 years, I doubt a small parcal is owned.

What about the Krause's, who have lived there forever? Farmed the same land. Should they get denied their years of hard work, in rough land, to see profit, so that a few people who wanted a pretty view can dictate?

I have know Mr. Kraus personally. He is more about the environment than most of you will ever be. Including me.

Sorry

LukeTHr wrote:

One thing I feel safe in saying is, no matter what the outcome, there has been and will continue to be a division in the county that will last for decades. People are becoming too stubborn nowdays to get past this and get back to being friends. The hostility this is generating is going to make life miserable for everyone involved and it will affect the county beyond those involved.

The only division is in the fact that the government does not listen to the people.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

LukeTHr wrote:

One thing I feel safe in saying is, no matter what the outcome, there has been and will continue to be a division in the county that will last for decades. People are becoming too stubborn nowdays to get past this and get back to being friends. The hostility this is generating is going to make life miserable for everyone involved and it will affect the county beyond those involved.

The only division is in the fact that the government does not listen to the people.

sure they do, they listen to those they want to hear from. usually the people with the biggest checkbook

All along the anti wind folks have said their only complaint was the location of the turbines,but now we see people talking shit about taking oaths and constitutional rights being denied. gimme a freakin break puuullleeeeaaaaassssseeee

Gee, I thought constitutional rights were important. My bad.

Do you own some guns that you are willing to give to the government, Blackie?

Justoo wrote:

Gee, I thought constitutional rights were important.

And are trampled upon on a daily basis.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

If you have family that has lived in the area for 100 years, I doubt a small parcal is owned.

What about the Krause's, who have lived there forever? Farmed the same land. Should they get denied their years of hard work, in rough land, to see profit, so that a few people who wanted a pretty view can dictate?

I have know Mr. Kraus personally. He is more about the environment than most of you will ever be. Including me.

The Kraus' are not the only ones that large parcels of land in the project area. I know a family that has almost 5 sections of land around the project area. They are on the outside of the boundry line and turbines will be on 2 sides of them. Do they not have the right to be able to protest this project. There family has been there for 6 generations. They have worked hard in rough land to achieve what they have.

You sound just like that ******* Gene Bittle who was recently heard saying something similar in that those who have more land has more rights.

justoo.....do you know where the city's"juristiction"ends---or whatever it's called---like reservation rd on the south-so and so on the east---de-dee-deeeee city limits!!!!yeah that's it!!!!

nitromaxx98 wrote:

so that a few people who wanted a pretty view can dictate?

They (the landowners) should charge an aesthetic fee.

So, with all of this protest, and First Amendment talk, Do the Phelps have the right to protest soldiers funerals?

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

All along the anti wind folks have said their only complaint was the location of the turbines,but now we see people talking shit about taking oaths and constitutional rights being denied. gimme a freakin break puuullleeeeaaaaassssseeee

You misinterpret their point. The problem isn't "location of the turbines", it's the "location of the project". Where it is, so close to Hays, is what the problem is.

The oaths and the constitutional rights have been noticed and have evolved along with the project. Sorry to say, there is a great deal of truth there.

There has been a lot of things happen over the past year that has torn this community apart, especially that group of people who live in this proposed area. If you haven't lived it, and with it, for what seems forever, you probably have no idea what has occurred. And, again sorry to say, as in most of our community members, you may not really care.

But there are a number of people who do live in that area, and do care. Don't belittle them for fighting for their rights.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

What is the pain you have suffered?

So now we have it that 40+% of the area landowners oppose the project, which in turn means around 50% presumably approve it. So this is an even more interesting issue. There's alot of talk about Constitutional rights, but whose should be recognized? The fact is no one has more rights than the next.

So let's try a different angle. Instead of everyone arguing and saying "my side is right", how bout we start seeing suggestions on how a compromise, if even possible can be reached. First off, let's start with the anti-windmill side. Is there a way it can be done in that area without protest? And both sides try to keep in mind that it's not about who has rights, it's about everyone having equal rights.

Justoo wrote:

Gee, I thought constitutional rights were important. My bad.

Do you own some guns that you are willing to give to the government, Blackie?

Say What???? What you been smokin?

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

Justoo wrote:

Gee, I thought constitutional rights were important. My bad.

Do you own some guns that you are willing to give to the government, Blackie?

Say What???? What you been smokin?

You're not willing to give up your right to bear arms yet you feel others should give up their first ammendment rights??

That is a big jug you been tipping. It is time to sober up Blackie.

Ratzilla wrote:

So now we have it that 40+% of the area landowners oppose the project, which in turn means around 50% presumably approve it. So this is an even more interesting issue. There's alot of talk about Constitutional rights, but whose should be recognized? The fact is no one has more rights than the next.

So let's try a different angle. Instead of everyone arguing and saying "my side is right", how bout we start seeing suggestions on how a compromise, if even possible can be reached. First off, let's start with the anti-windmill side. Is there a way it can be done in that area without protest? And both sides try to keep in mind that it's not about who has rights, it's about everyone having equal rights.

If memory serves me correctly, the petitions included more than 60% of the land owners objecting to the project. Many were disallowed at the request of the lawyers for Iberdrola. Minor technicalities were more important than the spirit of the law. So, no, 50% did not approve of this project.
As far as the rights being equal, that is true in many cases. But when it comes to potential harm (real or perceived) the rights are no longer equal, but tend to lean towards protecting those at risk (again, real or perceived).
I remember in an example presented to the class in high school government studies taught by Esther Kraus. Everyone has the right to pick up a baseball bat and swing it around freely. You can do this anytime, anywhere. Unless there is someone in the vicinity that may be harmed by your action. Your activity with that baseball bat changes from a right to a potential criminal act by the mere presence of another. You don't have to actually harm them to be held criminally liable. The threat (assault) is sufficent to disallow your right to swing that bat.
If there are ten people swinging bats and only one person threatened, it is still illegal. Just because more than 50% had the right to swing that bat does not mean that the one individual should lose his right to be safe.
Even in this scenario there are exceptions based on proper location. If the bat is being swung freely by someone in the on deck circle, his right to swing that bat freely over rides that of the nearby pedestrian, because he is doing it in an area that is known to be, designed to be, and proscribed to be used for that purpose.
This activity is not allowed in the dugout because it is an inappropriate location.

The statement was made that "So now we have it that 40+% of the area landowners oppose the project, which in turn means around 50% presumably approve it." This is simply not true.

First of all the "%" figure is the percentage of the property in the immediate surrounding area which was signed into the protest petition. If the number of "landowners" were counted as a percentage, then the number of protestors would have been closer to 75%. This is only landowners having property within 1000' of the proposed project.

Also the assumption that if 40% oppose the project, means that 50% or more approve the project is simply not true. The 40% have affirmed their disapproval by completing a protest petition and having their signatures verified by a notary public. A number of individuals having land in the perimeter area did not have the property counted as the county disallowed one property because the property is in a trust and the trustee signed her name without a ", trustee" behind her name. Another property was not counted because the land had passed through probate, but the probate documents were filed in Rush County instead of Ellis County, and the county clerk would not accept a file stamped, certified copy of the Rush County documents.

Fortunately, not everything is a simple majority.

1. Always be respectful of other members of this forum: Respectful is defined as; Full of, characterized by, or showing politeness or deference. Synonyms are courteous, polite, decorous, civil, deferential. Member is defined as; One that belongs to a group or an organization.

2. No libelous comments. Libel being defined as: defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

3. No crude or obscene photos.


As owners of this forum, we reserve the right to edit or delete any posts or threads that we feel do not stay within the rules listed above. We will not tolerate disrespectful or offensive comments towards any member of this forum.


We invite civil and respectful debates of all topics, national or local. Feel free to discuss local politics, religion or news. We encourage everyone to have an equal voice.