I am my own Neighbor

Justoo wrote:

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.

Show me where I ever said I was willing to give up any rights and deny others the same? You are so full of your self...wise guy

NEW YORK - Oil rose above $126 a barrel for the first time Friday, bringing its advance this week to nearly $10, as investors questioned whether a possible confrontation between the U.S. and Venezuela could cut exports from the OPEC member. Gas prices, meanwhile, rose above an average $3.67 a gallon at the pump, following oil's recent path higher.

Now I understand why some of you are so deadset against alternative forms of energy.

Sorry justoo, but unless you are suggesting that pro-windmill landowners plan to chop off their neighbors heads with them the ball bat isn't a good example. That example would have to assume that the pro-turbine owners should be aware that they endanger their neighbors by putting these up. Since the vast majority of thousands of turbines are operating without incident they have no reason to think they threaten anyone.

If these turbines were proven to fail catastrophically at an unacceptable rate then none of us would like the idea of them being here. And as far as the major argument of ruining the scenery or flicker goes, I guess we better put it to a county wide vote, because anyone driving near them will see that. They will be part of the scenery for all of us.

As to the percentages that you guys want to pick at, I remind you that it was your side of the argument that said even one person protesting still has rights, therefore it works the other way round unless you can prove that the pro-wind landowners knowingly intend to endanger their neighbors. And "that" is simply not true.

plowboy wrote:

NEW YORK - Oil rose above $126 a barrel for the first time Friday, bringing its advance this week to nearly $10, as investors questioned whether a possible confrontation between the U.S. and Venezuela could cut exports from the OPEC member. Gas prices, meanwhile, rose above an average $3.67 a gallon at the pump, following oil's recent path higher.

Now I understand why some of you are so deadset against alternative forms of energy.

The price of oil has nothing to do with electric generation.

Justoo wrote:

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.

I decided to repost your ball bat comment since I didn't in my previous reply. Can you please offer verified statistics of the number of persons being injured or killed by wind turbines? No offense man, but you just seem like you're on a crusade here at times with the wind turbines being demons set upon us by the company of Satan.

Dusty Moff wrote:

plowboy wrote:

NEW YORK - Oil rose above $126 a barrel for the first time Friday, bringing its advance this week to nearly $10, as investors questioned whether a possible confrontation between the U.S. and Venezuela could cut exports from the OPEC member. Gas prices, meanwhile, rose above an average $3.67 a gallon at the pump, following oil's recent path higher.

Now I understand why some of you are so deadset against alternative forms of energy.

The price of oil has nothing to do with electric generation.

Perhaps not directly, but eventually the ripple effect will impact here too in one form or another.

Ratzilla wrote:

Justoo wrote:

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.

I decided to repost your ball bat comment since I didn't in my previous reply. Can you please offer verified statistics of the number of persons being injured or killed by wind turbines? No offense man, but you just seem like you're on a crusade here at times with the wind turbines being demons set upon us by the company of Satan.

I think his point was not so much about the bat, but the location of the "on deck circle". My question is why is it perfectly acceptable for people to build houses in the area that consume energy, but others cannot build things that create energy?

Is it because they were there first? If so, did they ask the local wildlife before they built their homes?

Hays is well known for it's past. Wouldn't it be encouraging to be known for the future as well?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Hays is well known for it's past. Wouldn't it be encouraging to be known for the future as well?

Yes, but don't hold your breath.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

I think his point was not so much about the bat, but the location of the "on deck circle"

He went into great detail about "doing harm" to others out of careless, or criminal behavior. I think there's alot more implied here than just where a windmill is put.

Good point

wilkykav2 wrote:

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!!!!

so noone cares about my very important question??????whatever.

wilkykav2 wrote:

wilkykav2 wrote:

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!!!!

so noone cares about my very important question??????whatever.

I think the 183 bypass is pretty much the boundary between city and country

ok luke what about north & south????

north I think would be about the water tower north of walmart is about it for now. South would be the bypass around the parks then out past the airport

what about south of bypass,like canterbury and reservation rd????

Just watch where the city PD hit the brakes and the Sheriffs Dept. speeds up.

not sure but it isn't much past them if it is at all, most of that south is experiment station ground. besides , all the new growth is to the north

NexTech phone book maps show the city boundries.

Ratzilla wrote:

NexTech phone book maps show the city boundries.

well, I don't have one at the moment so just tell us

hey, you want to help me mix concrete tomorrow and set my support poles?

Might do that. ( the concrete) What boundries do you want to know. Hays has some odd additions and such now

Hays has always been odd...

Follow the polycarts, that simple...

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Follow the polycarts, that simple...

the big blue outline will show the way.......

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Follow the polycarts, that simple...

Good idea. Get an aerial photo and connect the dots.

Ratzilla wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Follow the polycarts, that simple...

Good idea. Get an aerial photo and connect the dots.

Google Earth

I used Google Earth to overlay a boundryline over the newest project area, and don't see the 100 households within the distance.

wilkykav2 wrote:

wilkykav2 wrote:

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!!!!

so noone cares about my very important question??????whatever.

Sorry it took so long to answer. I had a life yesterday. But that was temporary. Back to normal.

Link to city map

Right click to zoom in or out. It works better than the tools provided.
Note that many areas that are incorporated into the city are not actually touching the rest of the city. Like that area at Commerce and I-70 that used to be a rest area and is now a city park, the airport and surrounding development area, or the developments near the bypass.

Don't forget that the city has a 3 mile area around the city that they control the zoning of.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

I think his point was not so much about the bat, but the location of the "on deck circle". My question is why is it perfectly acceptable for people to build houses in the area that consume energy, but others cannot build things that create energy?

Is it because they were there first? If so, did they ask the local wildlife before they built their homes?

Nitro is right that my post was about appropriate location and real or percieved threats of harm.
At a later time I will provide you some examples of harm. Please remember that not all harm includes the need for a bandage.

It is not about who was there first. Wind powered electric generation facilities have certain guidelines for siting that were put forward by the state. This location does not meet most of those guidelines. I am not aware of such stringent siting reqirements for domestic structures. Perhaps because they don't have the inherent risks that come with 400' tall stuctures with moving parts as big as a 747.

Below is a link to the city limits map and the three mile boundary map, which is covered by the Hays City zoning rules and regs.

http://www.haysusa.com/ZoningMap.pdf

Justoo wrote:

Nitro is right that my post was about appropriate location and real or percieved threats of harm.
At a later time I will provide you some examples of harm. Please remember that not all harm includes the need for a bandage.

It is not about who was there first. Wind powered electric generation facilities have certain guidelines for siting that were put forward by the state. This location does not meet most of those guidelines. I am not aware of such stringent siting reqirements for domestic structures. Perhaps because they don't have the inherent risks that come with 400' tall stuctures with moving parts as big as a 747.

Then why didn't you speak of appropriate locations instead of a long speech comparing windfarm supporters to a person swinging a bat like a madman? Your answer was intended to accuse windfarm supporters of not caring if they did harm (real or percieved) to their neighbors with the very blatent accusation of bering criminals if they put these 747 sized meat grinders up as if they were invented to slaughter innocent bystanders.

Sorry to be pissy man, I understand many of your points, but your ball bat comparison was far from just talking about proper location. You were making accusations of criminal behavior suggesting that the pro-wind side is intentionally willing to expose their neighbors to the dangers of the windmills.

Stop and think here. Most of those who are worried about the dangers of these turbines have probably paid to stand and watch their kids fly around on carnival rides ran and maintained by tattoo covered toothless inbreds.

The part you quoted is a response to two questions and you seem to have taken some out of context and/or forgotten some facts/allegations.The last paragraph of the last quote is a response to Nitros;
"Is it because they were there first? If so, did they ask the local wildlife before they built their homes? "

The part that seems to bother you is "400' tall stuctures with moving parts as big as a 747".
I wasn't talking about the blades acting as meat grinders slaughtering people.
I stated that the structures are 400' tall. They are that from ground to blade tip.
I stated that they have moving parts equivilant in size to a 747. They do.
The inherent risk would be ice throw in the winter months. A real risk. Whether the odds are 2-1 or a million -1 on striking someone is immaterial. It is a risk.
There are other types of harm, real or percieved, that don't usually require bandages. we can get into that later.
I never alleged criminal intent. When those land owners signed those leases many were probably not aware that there were some risks involved, real or percieved. You can bet the sales person didn't bring it up. After they became aware of these allegations by their neighbors, they may have tried, unsuccessfully, to get out of the contract.

I never said, nor did I mean to imply, meatgrinder, slaughter or criminal intent.

When I read your original post again I see that we are both right. You did speak of proper locations, but you also suggested the pro-wind owners would be criminally liable if they "swing their bat" outside of whatever place you consider appropriate. Other than saying tilled land, I don't recall you saying just what part of the county if any, you'd accept these. I think the SW corner of the county is about perfect, but it's mostly untilled hills. The low grounds are the best farm land.

Ice on the blades is a legit concern, since I listen to the DJ on 96.9 warn everyone about falling tower ice there. I have to "assume" they could be shut down in bad ice conditions. By the way, don't be too upset at the 747 comment. I wouldn't have shot back with that if you hadn't handed me the ammunition.

Now to be totally fair, I'll post your comments and highlight both your points, and mine.

Justoo wrote:

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.

I suppose the logical place to go with my next request is to ask if one of you can post the state regulations that prevent the windfarms from being in this particular area.

Boy i bet wind mills would turn today! I have my share of leaves and don't own a tree! Ahhh gotta lova the wind!

here is a video that show ice falling from a TV tower like the one on Hall street in Hays. of course that didn't seem to concern the folks that just built a bank nearby

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBp2QYOIbc&feature=related

I doubt that the company that operates the wind generators would have them running with ice coating them. The weight of the ice could cause an out of balance situation that could damage the unit. so unless you build your home directly beneath one you will be perfectly safe.

SITE RANKING CRITERIA FOR WIND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Each proposed wind development project would be scored based on the following:
· Spatial pattern analysis to quantify landscape structure
o Area metrics: area size, percentage of landscape, etc.
o Edge metrics
o Patch density, patch size and variability metrics
o Shape metrics
o Core area metrics
o Nearest neighbor metrics
o Contagion and interspersion metrics
· Site Condition
o Level of existing development
§ Oil & gas production
§ Residential
§ Roads & transmission lines
o Habitat Scores
§ Habitat type
§ Habitat structure
§ Floristic richness
§ Woody encroachment and invasive species
· Site features
o T&E species (state & federal)
o Rare and declining species
o Unique features
§ Lekking areas (currently used and potential)
§ Springs, wetlands, etc.
· Site vulnerability - imminent threats (within next 5 to 10 years); e.g., urban sprawl, highway
projects, etc.
· Adjacency of existing protected sites (public lands, easements, preserves, etc.)
Using the above criteria, potential development sites would be ranked within four categories:
· Level One - Very High Conservation Priority Area (can not be mitigated to improve ranking) - e.g.,
more intact areas of the Flint Hills; sand-sage prairies
· Level Two - High Priority Conservation Priority Area (high level of mitigation required to offset lost
habitat due to fragmentation)
· Level Three - Moderate Conservation Priority Area (moderate level of mitigation)
· Level Four - Low Conservation Priority Area (low level of mitigation required)
· Level Five - Not identified as having high biological significance (no mitigation required)
A level Two site could be upgraded as a "Green" project (level five) by providing a high degree of mitigation;
that is, the area of intact prairie would need to be compensated with enough funds to purchase conservation
easements for triple (3X) the acreage impacted by the development project. A level three project could be
re-ranked as a level five project by 2X mitigation (funds to purchase conservation easements). And a level
four project could be mitigated to achieve a Green ranking with 1X mitigation. Funds to purchase
conservation easements could be used only on properties that ranked as a Level 1 or 2 site.

Ok, so what do we have here that disqualifies this location that they don't have by the Ellsworth site?

Ratzilla wrote:

Ok, so what do we have here that disqualifies this location that they don't have by the Ellsworth site?

that's simple. the fact that it's here and not somewhere else

It's all about money!

Nearest neighbor metrics
Residential
Site vulnerability - imminent threats (within next 5 to 10 years); e.g., urban sprawl,
And a petition.

LukeTHr wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

Ok, so what do we have here that disqualifies this location that they don't have by the Ellsworth site?

that's simple. the fact that it's here and not somewhere else

like I said earlier.....

The listing of criteria is rather vague, but looking at those things it seems someone with a complaint could find an excuse to block them just about anywhere. So far all I see is that there should be at least 2000 foot between them and homes, and they shouldn't run when ice could be a problem. Though if in movement I doubt ice would be a big threat.

So tell me something else that might influence my thought. Ice is a good thing to consider when deciding distance from homes. What else is real, because a perceived threat sounds too much like the grounds for alot of our current BS laws.

Justoo wrote:

Nearest neighbor metrics
Residential
Site vulnerability - imminent threats (within next 5 to 10 years); e.g., urban sprawl,
And a petition.

So if the windfarm moves in, people will continue to move to that area? What? In the hopes that the real or percieved flikcker, radio interference, ice chunks may occour so that they can clain a big insurance check?

Turbines are locked down during dangerous situations. Drove past the Quinter one this evening, locked down, as it was yesterday.

Boils down to anti-wind people are grasping at straws.

Actually this thread started out as a comment on certain citizens losing their right to protest.
That would be their constitutional right. First amendment. Personally, I feel that the first amendment is more important than whether Quinter locked down their windmill.

It boils down to Iberdrola cicumventing the rules in such a way as to deny people their First Amendment Rights. If they are allowed to ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution, we might as well expect warrantless searches to take our guns away next.

Justoo wrote:

Actually this thread started out as a comment on certain citizens losing their right to protest.
That would be their constitutional right. First amendment. Personally, I feel that the first amendment is more important than whether Quinter locked down their windmill.

It boils down to Iberdrola cicumventing the rules in such a way as to deny people their First Amendment Rights. If they are allowed to ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution, we might as well expect warrantless searches to take our guns away next.

That's one way to view it. On the other hand, it can be seen as by setting setting the project further back they have just made adjustments to the project allowed by law.

Anyone got a map of the propsed project area? There's alot of ground out where I think this is that could be used without getting very close to homes.

Justoo wrote:

Actually this thread started out as a comment on certain citizens losing their right to protest.
That would be their constitutional right. First amendment. Personally, I feel that the first amendment is more important than whether Quinter locked down their windmill.

It boils down to Iberdrola cicumventing the rules in such a way as to deny people their First Amendment Rights. If they are allowed to ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution, we might as well expect warrantless searches to take our guns away next.

They have been doing warrantless searches, taking guns away, stifling freedom of speech and press, violating the Posse Comitatus Act, and many other things for years. And for years I've been saying if you refuse to speak up for the Constitutional rights of even the worst criminal, you get no pity from me when it's your turn. I speak up on every issue that I feel is unconstitutional. Do you?

Can't say every, but most. And you don't feel this is removing their right to petition?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Hays is well known for it's past.

Actually the only place that Hays is well known for its past is in Kansas. 99% of the people beyond the borders of Kansas have never even heard of Hays.

Justoo, did you vote for Bill Clinton?