I am my own Neighbor

mbsb.. I told my2cents they were whining. and they were at that time. I'm weighing facts on both sides in an attempt to decide what's BS and what's right. I have no gain or loss from the windfarm. Low level noise won't bother most. Only those hyper sensitive to it will be that disturbed. The rest would grow accustomed to it just as we all have the noise of oil pumping units. I do think it's rather rediculous for a person to buy 2 or 3 acres of ground so he can have nice scenery and expect everyone else to leave their thousands of acres the way he wants it.

It's not just the scenery. Of course I would like the agricultural setting to stay that way - I wouldn't be honest if I said that didn't bother me. But the real concerns are the health risks, the property value risks, etc. I agree that not all people will be affected by the low level noise - some will be more sensitive to it - but we won't know who those people are until it's too late. Then those people are faced with assuming those risks or leave their homes. Quite frankly, I'm concerned that people think that those who have more (more land), are more important than what I own. If these things wouldn't affect my property value, my family's health, etc. - there wouldn't be anything I could say - but in spite of all of the opinions out there - the facts are that we are assuming those risks and didn't ask for it. Our property and lives are affected. These affects of the turbines are not secluded to the landowner's land only.

As for leaving our home goes. Trust me - we looked at that possibility in spite of working hard and sacrificing for 16 years at our place. But when we looked at replacing what we have - we would be looking at spending $80,000 to $100,000 more than what our current property value is. Is it right that in order to "vote with our feet" - we have to leave what we have and go $80,000 to $100,000 in debt? We can't and won't go into that much debt. So we are left with the decision to put up with this and hope for the best or live in a home that is not equal to what we currently have.

mbsb wrote:

We didn't ask for zoning either. In fact before all of this came about we would have been against zoning. But now that it is in place - the procedure was followed - and the outcomes were not what the landowners and Iberdrola wanted - so now they don't like the process anymore so they want to change the rules. As for the whining - I was just referencing what you said we were all doing in your post earlier this evening. Doesn't feel so good does it - that a person's concerns, worries, and fight for what their property is to them - is called "whining."

I have seen too many situations occur in which someone proposes a project that gets declined, so revisions are made, re-proposed, and if declined again, another revision is made and so on and so on until the project goes forward. Those that want a project to go forward just keep pushing until they get their way. A couple of examples that come to mind are the Hays swimming pool and the Hays library. Those were both projects that kept being pushed until the people that wanted them got their way. This windfarm/ industrial wind complex/call it whatever the hell you want to, will go the same way in my opinion. But I think that the county should have implemented zoning a long time ago to stop all the small housing developments that have sprung up, but hey, thats just my opinion

Just to set the record straight - many of us out here bought our land from the larger land owners. Some of which want this thing and others don't. The landowner that we bought our farmstead from does not want this project. Others have bought property from those who will have turbines on their property. So would you, as a zoning board member, want to restrict who and how much property that these large landowners can sell????

I think one house per 40 acres would have made a huge difference.

And you are the one that doesn't think that landowners should be told what to do with their land????

Which way do you want it?

I'm like anyone else around here, I want it my way

Somebody please give me a GOOD reason to deny these people their First Amendment Right.

LukeTHr wrote:

well 2 cents, if the view and peace and quiet are so important to YOU, then YOU need to go take out a loan and buy the land that YOU like the view of so much. and if YOU don't like the changes in the neighborhood, then feel free to vote with YOUR feet and move. but as far as I see it, YOU have no right to tell YOUR neighbors what THEY can and can't lease THEIR ground out for

In response to your first sentence, I love where I live, the peace and quite go on for miles on end same goes for my view. My nearest neighbor is over a mile away.

In response to your last sentence, when zoning was rammed down the throats of Ellis County, it gave those in Ellis County the right to protest what their neighbors can do with their land and in your own words; if YOU don't like the changes in the neighborhood, then feel free to vote with YOUR feet and move.

I have never posted before and have rewritten this several times, so please bear with me.

This whole argument, long ago, ceased being about what is best and fair. It has become a quest by more than one group to be right. There are personal agendas being pushed here, on every side, and the only entity that will suffer will be Ellis County.

The stance that constitutional rights are being trampled on is quickly losing it’s validity.
Just a couple of years ago a cell phone tower was put up within 1000 feet of schools, homes and stores in Hays. There was no protest, no dissent. The same company applied for a CUP to erect a tower outside of Victoria. Because of a family feud, there was protest. The company followed the procedures and met all the requirements, seemingly in good faith. Those against the tower were unable to meet the 20% protest requirement to force a unanimous decision. So they have sued the county commission. On what grounds? That the company wanting to build the tower purposely manipulated the measurements to avoid the protest. I do not understand why that company would even think protest was an imminent concern, seeing as how other towers have gone up with no argument and they were much closer to more people. But it was a good, generic argument that pushed the free speech button so those who wanted to stop the tower could continue trying.

Iberdrola may very well have purposely redrawn the measurements to avoid the complication of a protest. I don’t know, and I am not so naïve that I would believe they were above suspicion. However, because the same argument has been used to try to stop other development, it does not seem as valid. As I have seen written, changing the measurements is a cookie cutter approach to circumventing the CUP regulations, the argument about free speech through protest being squashed is becoming a cookie cutter approach to halting development, regardless of whether it is a valid argument or not.

I have also seen so many comments about the indifference from a good portion of the community in regard to the wind farm issue. I will readily admit to being indifferent. Not by choice, but the arguments and allegations have become so convoluded that I don't have the time to make a decision I am comfortable with, because I find it hard to believe any of the information. So much of it is heresay and mind reading that I would rather ignore it. I am sure that I am not alone in that regard. This is especially sad, because the stated intent by all involved is the opposite.

At the end of it all, this has become such a ridiculous argument that I have a difficult time believing anything said by either group. This is not about property rights or free speech anymore. It is about being the biggest bully and making sure that you are right at all costs.

As a young professional, I see the attempts to keep our young people in Western Kansas. As someone who has lived here my entire life I want to preserve the lifestyle I have come to love. It is unfortunate that we are willing to sacrifice one for the other to be right instead of working together to accomplish both.

mbsb.... If someone is hyper sensitive to low level noise they probably know it because they are always bothered by things nobody else is.

justoo.... Just because you can't mount a formal protest petition doesn't mean first amendment rights are taken away. You and all the rest can picket whatever government office you like and torment the politicians as long as you want. You lost the ability to petition because big business knows how to play the games. You never lost first amendment rights or you wouldn't be getting by with all the accusations that many of you are making. Do like I say if it's so important. Picket offices, hand out flyers, get on your public soap box and yell (insert name here) is a (insert insult, or accusation here) just as they would have when the Bill of Rights was written.

Noone Special.... I've said repeatedly that this has become a fued. It's becoming more to do with who gets to hose who and that's sad.

First point:
"hyper sensitive" was YOUR description - not mine!! You took my reply to you out of context. I was agreeing that some people will be affected more than others - but nobody really knows what kind of affect it will have on who - until we are all sitting in the middle of this.

Second point:
So we lost the right to a petition BECAUSE BIG BUSINESS KNOWS HOW TO PLAY THE GAMES - exactly my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again - the winner is....Iberdrola. Great job helping "little" Iberdrola fight their battles.

Third point:
We are simply fighting for what we HAVE vs. those who WANT more - at the expense of others. Call it a feud if you want to - I look at it as defending our property from a BIG corporation "that knows how to play the games." By the way - do you own property? Anywhere?

I know hyper sensitivity was my description. You said we won't know who has it until the demon wind turbines screech their siren songs to send them into insanity. and yes, I know you didn't say it like that so don't bore me with another tantrum over it. I said anyone wiith hyper sensitivity to LLN already knows because a quiet refrigerator can drive them nuts.

I'm not sticking up for tricky plays by big business. I'm saying learn to compete with them instead of just continually yelling not fair. Whiners (yes I said whiners to you this time) do not impress big corporations.

Yes I own three houses. Any more questions?

Nope - No more questions.
No more discussion.
No more "whining."

I'm done.

Learn to play their game mbsb. That's the only way you can have more than continual gridlock.

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.
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Allowing a rant on a soapbox does not equal a petition for redress of grievances.

By your argument, the government could take your guns away and tell you that you still have your second amendment rights because you still have the right to pick up a rock and throw it in self defense. Go David, Beat Goliath.

Sorry Ratz, but your ideas of protecting constitutional rights are a bit too watered down for my liking.

The whole idea behind a petition (as gauranteed by the 1st amendment) is to be heard in a court of law or a governing board. To be heard by someone who has the power and legal ability to make changes if deemed necessary. To restrict that right and limit a person to holding a placard provides no more protection than discussing it on this board or writing a letter to the editor.

Allowing a peaceful protest (also allowed by the 1st amendment) is not a reasonable substitute for a petition. A peaceful protest may make the powers that be aware of your grievance, but without the right to file a petition there is no mechanism for corrective action to be considered, much less enacted.

The First Amendment protects both, the right to peaceful protest and the right to petition for redress, because they are seperate yet equally important equations in freedom.

justoo. this is too much. The government did NOT take your 1st amendment rights away. You havn't the slightest comprehension of the Bill of Rights if you think that's happened. You HAVE ALREADY submitted a legal petition. Now Iberdrola has hit you with a possible loophole you didn't expect, but Iberdrola DOES NOT have the power to remove your 1st amendment right to protest. Circulate a new petition and submit it. Government might tell you that you have no legal grounds to prevent the windfarm, but they cannot refuse your right to complain.

The Baptist church in Ellis has had an ongoing battle with someone putting in a bar beside them. By legal rights the bar owner has all the rights since both the church and the proposed bar are in a business district. Legally the church has no right to complain, but they still did, they still got listened to, and a compromise was reached. If they can do it with no legal right whatsoever to do so, then you can too.

With all the money being invested in the wind power industry, I believe wind turbines will be a common sight for everyone in this part of the country... I think we better get used to it whether we like it or not. Whining and bitching about rights and oaths isn't gonna stop it. I think it's too big an animal.

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

With all the money being invested in the wind power industry, I believe wind turbines will be a common sight for everyone in this part of the country... I think we better get used to it whether we like it or not. Whining and bitching about rights and oaths isn't gonna stop it. I think it's too big an animal.

That makes it OK?

Once upon a time big corporations were taxed out the ass. As a result they helped the little man because doing for others got them tax breaks. Now the taxation for millionaires is much lower and they only help themselves. Don't like it? Vote in a new breed of politician not easily influenced by under the table cash.

How many people who oppose the wind farm are willing to give up their consumption of energy to preserve their view?

Ratz brings up a most excellent point. If I wished to petition to have the HCVB removed, which is here, and will not leave, I can still petition to do so. I can also petiton to have Hays renamed, nitromaxx98ville.

You and others have lost no rights.

The only thing that might have been lost is the ability to stall the wind project another year, which is apparently what they think right to protest means. They still have full 1st amendment right to petition and protest, but contrary to what they believe, the 1st amendment does not guarantee they will always get what they want.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Iberdrola said Sunday it plans to invest $8 billion in the U.S. over the next three years in renewable energy such as wind power, marking the Spanish utility's latest effort to increase its presence in the American market.
The company has been expanding aggressively in alternative energies and sees the U.S., with its huge appetite for power and big swaths of flat, windy terrain, as one of the most promising markets.
Iberdrola (ES:0144580Y1: news, chart, profile) is the world's largest developer of wind farms and it already owns wind farms in New York state, California and Oregon, with construction underway in several other states in the Plains and Great Lakes.
The company said it wants to obtain about a 15% share of the U.S. market for wind power by 2010. Although wind power contributes only a tiny portion of the electricity generated each year in the U.S., the percentage is growing as oil prices rise and companies search for cheaper and cleaner alternative sources of energy.
In some places, however, residents have objected to the presence of tall wind turbines, though experts say there are plenty of places where the turbines can be installed far from populous areas.

Re-group or punt?

I think it's time for JP Michaud to either re-do his signs along old 40, take them down or be fined for littering. They look like ragged old garbage now.

Anybody hear anything about whatever kind of ruling was told to the county commission last Monday

opinion from the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission

QUESTIONS:


1. Is a member of a planning commission, acting in an advisory capacity only, required to disclose a family relationship and/or abstain from voting on an issue concerning the property of the family member?


2. As a member of a board that is advisory to the County Commission, would an individual be required to file a disclosure of interests form with the County Clerk, pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4304a, when a matter concerning the family member's property was before the advisory board?


OPINION:


In regard to the first question, K.S.A. 75-4301a applies. It states in pertinent part:
"(c) 'Local government employee' means any employee of any governmental subdivision or any of its agencies.
(d) 'Local government officer' means any elected or appointed officer of any governmental subdivision or any of its agencies...
(f) 'Governmental subdivision' means any city, county, township, school district, drainage district or other governmental subdivision of the state having authority to receive or hold public moneys or funds.'"


In as much as the Ellis County Planning Commission does not have authority to receive or hold public moneys or funds, and the only functions of the commission are to hear requests for construction in the county and to make non-binding recommendations regarding such proposals, the commission is not a subdivision for which employees and officers might otherwise be subject to the local conflict of interests laws, including 75-4302a and 75-4304. Thus, in answer to your second question, members of the Ellis County Planning Commission are not required to comply with K.S.A. 75-4303a by filing a disclosure of interests form with the County Clerk under any application of that statute

Remember, this is an opinion. Someone pointed out that the zoning commission could be responsible for funds as decided by the governing body. This basically shot down the opinion stating that the zoning commission has no monetary responsibility, and therefore is exempt from the state statutes. And as stated this opinion (whether accurate or based on incomplete information and thus inaccurate) is based on state law. Any local ordinances above and beyond this state law still apply. The following is from Ellis County Zoning Regulation Amendment Procedure.



TEXT AMENDMENT PROCEDURE:
1. A proposal for an amendment or change to the text of the Zoning Regulation may be made by the Joint Planning Commission or the Governing Body. An individual may request an amendment to the text to either the Joint Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners or the Governing Body any participating city, but it will not be considered unless the Joint Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners or the city Governing Body determines the proposal is worthy of consideration as an amendment. If it is determined the proposal has merit and should be considered as an amendment, the proposal is advertised for public hearing. The costs of such advertisement and publications are to be paid from the budget supporting the Joint Planning Commission.

That paragraph should render that opinion null and void. Unless it is just another business loophole.

Instructions for a Protest Petition
Protest Petition

In completing this form, PLEASE:
1. Enter in Section I of the petition the information about the property against which the protest is made.
2. Use a separate form for each property owner(s) making a protest.
3. Enter in Section II of the petition your full name (wife's also if she is a joint owner) and the full legal description by lot, block, and addition (or by metes and bounds description) of your property.
4. The protest petitions shall be submitted to the County Clerk for cases within the unincorporated portion of the county or the City Clerk for cases within a city, and they will be presented to the appropriate Governing Body when the subject zone change or Conditional Use Permit is considered

The instructions for this LEGAL PETITION, as you can see, are considerably different than the petition you might pass around to change the name of your community to Ratzvilla.

The type of petition you speak of is advisory in nature and governing boards may or may not review its' merits. It is at their whim that it may be reviewed. However a legal petition as described above must be at least considered. It brings the process to a higher level of scrutiny in that it requires a 3/4 majority to pass. It does not stop a project, it causes review. The advisory petition carries all the weight and power that you would expect if you were to use that same method of petition to request that Exxon dropped their prices.

I do understand a little about the constitution, and petitions of more than one type. Eliminating the right to file a legal petition and only allowing an advisory petition truly is no different than telling you that you still have the right to throw rocks, so you don't need a gun.

An article in the Hays paper alludes to exactly what I am speaking of, on a different subject.

Schibi initiated a petition drive a few months ago, which would be solely to express public sentiment and not have any legally binding effect. More than 200 signatures were collected, but efforts have been delayed until the time that a legally binding petition could be required to protest bond issuance, he said.

So are you saying that this legal ruling does not apply to the people that they ruled on?

Justoo wrote:

opinion from the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission

QUESTIONS:


1. Is a member of a planning commission, acting in an advisory capacity only, required to disclose a family relationship and/or abstain from voting on an issue concerning the property of the family member?


2. As a member of a board that is advisory to the County Commission, would an individual be required to file a disclosure of interests form with the County Clerk, pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4304a, when a matter concerning the family member's property was before the advisory board?


OPINION:


In regard to the first question, ...

It is not a legal ruling. It is an opinion on a legal matter.
The local county attorney may advise to take that approach. He also has the option of recommending another approach. For example, he could recommend that they follow the rules and bylaws that they themselves wrote and approved.

So how many tax dollars were spent to develop an opinion on this matter?

SOOO...what you are saying is that you believe that the opinion of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, who I would imagine deals with questions like this fairly often, is "null and void" because you just can't imagine anyone else looking at this and thinking there could be any other opinion that yours. It must be flawed because they just don't understand the "personal belief" you have.

tax dollars were spent to develop an opinion

Looks like there are ten employees.They were there for this opinion and this opinion only. Now that it has been answered they can disband and save us some tax dollars.

upfront wrote:

SOOO...what you are saying is that you believe that the opinion of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, who I would imagine deals with questions like this fairly often, is "null and void" because you just can't imagine anyone else looking at this and thinking there could be any other opinion that yours. It must be flawed because they just don't understand the "personal belief" you have.

No. I am saying that this opinion was based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Incomplete or inaccurate information can make a huge difference in how a law is interpreted. That is my opinion. What really matters is not their opinion, nor mine. WHat really matters is how the county commissioners choose to handle this information. They have been provided with both opinions and will base their decision on what they and the county attorney believe is the best course of action. I know how I would handle this information, but that doesn't matter because I am not in their elected position.

At least this is getting bounced off people. Unlike the HCVB and poly-carts.

Yet still, such a waste of $$.

Shit or get off the pot, Comission.

serious question here Nitro - what exactly is it that you have against the HCVB?

nobodysbusiness wrote:

serious question here Nitro - what exactly is it that you have against the HCVB?

Was placed on the worst parking location in Hays, Should have been closer to I-70, outsourced building projects to out of town companys, always empty, need I go on?

Seriously, what does hays have to offer tourists or business?

ok.

Hays is one of the bigger cities between here and Denver or Kansas City. There are a lot of conventions held here for numerous reasons. It's location is only a 1/2 mile from I-70. We may not have huge attractions but I don't think there is anything wrong with what Hays has to offer. To many people Hays is the "BIG CITY" (it was for me for many many years). People often complain that we don't have this, or don't have that but Hays has grown into a decent community.

I guess I am sick of hearing the things that are WRONG with the town, and nothing positive. How can we expect this town to grow into a better community when there is all this negativity? All the energy we expend into bitching could be spent doing some good. You can bitch all you want, until you are blue in the face but it doesn't do any good unless someone does something to rectify the problem. The world has enough problems, but pointing them out and complaining about all of it and not doing anything to make the world better will just lead to more bitching.

/rant off

nobodysbusiness wrote:

We may not have huge attractions

You also do not have the daily gang killings, drug dealers running from the police in hi-speed car chases. You don't have to lock your doors if you just running into Quikway for a soda for fear of someone stealing your car. Your "rush hour" is more like 15 - 20 mintues (25 if your stuck at the train crossing). In Denver, rush "hour" lasts about 4 hours, and it is bumper to bumper, eight lanes going 2 - 3 miles per hour. I comuted 72 miles one way for 2 years just so I would not have to live in Denver. When I finally broke down and moved to Denver I moved into an apartment, that night, SWAT raided the apartment 3 doors down from mine.

nobodysbusiness wrote:

I guess I am sick of hearing the things that are WRONG with the town, and nothing positive.

It is a tried and true rule of thumb, You really do not have the right to bitch if you do not vote and if you are going to bitch, please have a REASONABLE and REALISTIC answer to the problem.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Seriously, what does hays have to offer tourists or business?

Oakley KS has the biggest prairie dog, maybe we have the biggest pessimist .

RomadBuff wrote:

nobodysbusiness wrote:

We may not have huge attractions

You also do not have the daily gang killings, drug dealers running from the police in hi-speed car chases. You don't have to lock your doors if you just running into Quikway for a soda for fear of someone stealing your car. Your "rush hour" is more like 15 - 20 mintues (25 if your stuck at the train crossing). In Denver, rush "hour" lasts about 4 hours, and it is bumper to bumper, eight lanes going 2 - 3 miles per hour. I comuted 72 miles one way for 2 years just so I would not have to live in Denver. When I finally broke down and moved to Denver I moved into an apartment, that night, SWAT raided the apartment 3 doors down from mine.

nobodysbusiness wrote:

I guess I am sick of hearing the things that are WRONG with the town, and nothing positive.

It is a tried and true rule of thumb, You really do not have the right to bitch if you do not vote and if you are going to bitch, please have a REASONABLE and REALISTIC answer to the problem.

This is exactally why I moved back from Denver, 4 year resident. At least they used tax dollars to take care of the streets. As for bitching, I VOTE EVERY ELECTION, and I encourage others to do so as well, because it is a right we all were given in this country. As far as reasonable and realistic solutions, it's easy, don't waste money on wasteful "pet" projects.

Justoo wrote:

The type of petition you speak of is advisory in nature and governing boards may or may not review its' merits. It is at their whim that it may be reviewed. However a legal petition as described above must be at least considered. It brings the process to a higher level of scrutiny in that it requires a 3/4 majority to pass. It does not stop a project, it causes review. The advisory petition carries all the weight and power that you would expect if you were to use that same method of petition to request that Exxon dropped their prices.

I do understand a little about the constitution, and petitions of more than one type. Eliminating the right to file a legal petition and only allowing an advisory petition truly is no different than telling you that you still have the right to throw rocks, so you don't need a gun.

Hoo boy.. Let me try this one more time... "If" it is illegal in any way shape or form to draw project boundries through the center of a property instead of on the property line then you don't have to worry about whether a local commision will accept a petition because you can bitch all the way to Topeka.

You have possible issues here over zoning and inappropriate connections between those making decisions and those who benefit, but I don't see this as you wanting a right to petiton, I see it as wanting a right to perpetually stall.

And no, this isn't the same as the government taking my guns away. It's more like you being told to quit waving them in your neighbors face.

Having the right to cause a review is not equal to perpetually stalling the project. The petition, if it had no merit, would not stall the project more than the fifteen minutes it takes to propose, second, and pass.
If the petition does have merit, it would be a travesty to deny them the right to a review.

If Krista thought that the neighbors had no case, why should she even attempt to do something that would even appear to be unconstitutional.

Why is moving the project boundry lines further away from neighbors unconstitutional?

It removes the neighbors right to a legal petition. A legal petition requires the governing board to consider the complaint and make a ruling.
The advisory petition that you say is still there can be refused and ignored. A voice that is ignored is not a voice, but a noise.

Would moving the line in 1000' be considered replatting that particular property? Why or why not?

You must live in rural Hays Justoo?