1. Two Elk County commissioners (one beginning in 2007/2008) work feverishly to promote a local, taxpayer subsidized, wind farm project. A project that provides substantial land lease monies to one of them & their family for years to come... then....
2. The same two commissioners were wildly offended by the voluntary agreement entered into between the Governor & wind farm developers. An agreement that stops all future development of wind farms in the Flint Hills. So offended are these two that they publicly push to write an scathing official county letter to the Governor. A letter severely chastising the Gov & his agreement, but fortunately, cooler heads prevailed... then...
3. Noe, the same two commissioners, the privately owned Elk Konnected, LLC (founded by one of the same commissioners), and Public Squares, Inc. (the president of which is now one of these same commissioners) find themselves fully supporting and conspiring to help implement an Agenda 21 Sustainable Development plan that is destined to "preserve" the beauty and unobstructed vistas of the Flint Hills (oh, and preserve & improve the quality of life for people in 19 Kansas counties) through The Flint Hills Regional Plan. A Plan being supported by the same Governor that they were chastising in 2 above. A Plan that contains elements of "land use restrictions" for private property owners. A Plan, the development of which is funded by a multi-million dollar grant of taxpayer money from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (Urban Development? OK). A plan that is being overseen by a high dollar architectural firm (architectural = planned design). A plan that will embrace Conservation Easements on 1.1 million acres of land which will limit the abilities of private property owners (and their heirs/successors) from making many improvements/changes to their land.
4. The same two commissioners who rushed through a county 'revitalization' plan that, because of the high participaion costs) will most likely benefit only the wealthiest in the county by rebating property taxes for 'property development'.
Oh Krap! Konnect the dots, and make the stories believable people. The hypocrisy is beyond belief. Alrighty kids, you got yours. So now you support Agenda 21 programs that will limit others ability to get theirs? How magnanimous of you!
Wake up citizens (frogs in the pot)... the water is getting hotter, and you are being cooked. If you don't realize what all these liberal left (dare I say socialist) control programs are doing to your liberties, then you will deserve the controlled life you (and your children) will get at the hands of a few elitists who believe that they know better than you how your lives should be structured. Cities, counties and now even states are passing laws to STOP such Agenda 21 programs everywhere. Sadly, though, you may have already lost.
I warned you almost two years ago: All that glitters isn't gold, and Inch by inch. Wake Up!
I worked up on the wind farm think they knew it was coming long time before 2008 .I ask one of the big wigs from Enil why we placed them so far apart ,was told they had stuided wind currents up there for 7 years ,true or not I dont know .SO some one knew as far back as early 2000's
Quote from: oldfart on November 29, 2012, 11:09:17 AM
I worked up on the wind farm think they knew it was coming long time before 2008 .I ask one of the big wigs from Enil why we placed them so far apart ,was told they had stuided wind currents up there for 7 years ,true or not I dont know .SO some one knew as far back as early 2000's
Probably true... now what else happened in the early 2000s? Oh, we had a new commissioner 'appointed' 2002. And where have we gone from there? We report, you decide.
If I'm not mistaken, both of the commissioners have wind turbines on their ( or family ) property.
The point that Patriot makes that they also choose to back the conservation of the Flint Hills is what stinks, especially since one of those families has been polluting and raping these grasslands for years, since at least 1891, drilling and pumping oil, dumping salt water on the surface, sludge pits, et al. A drive around the countryside can show you the results as well as all of the surface pipe and junk left behind, pipes dumping in the waterways , etc. Some way of preserving the beauty, eh ?
Methinks their motives are driven more by $$$$$, than cents.
Isn't most everything money driven?
Another poster recently had a lot to say about people being allowed to do whatever they want on their own land, without limitations. You start considering visual beauty, junk, pipes and run off, ya suddenly sound like someone from a much more populated area, where what one does can affect many.
Did you change your mind?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on November 29, 2012, 03:47:48 PMwithout limitation
Without violating the rights of others. If they're dumping potentially hazardous materials that can get into the public water supply, that is when the government is supposed to step in and stop them. If they want to store property on their property that is their right even if it is considered "unsightly" by some. Even if it considered unsightly by a majority that is where the beauty of the constitution comes in and protects their RIGHTS. There is no right to take property because you think it is ugly. There is no right to property "value". They just don't exist.
Yup, for the most part I agree
Quote from: Bullwinkle on November 29, 2012, 03:13:39 PM
... makes that they also choose to back the conservation of the Flint Hills is what stinks, especially since one of those families has been polluting and raping these grasslands for years...
...Methinks their motives are driven more by $$$$$, than cents.
Maybe it's repentance and an attempt redemptive behavior... wait, if it involves UN Agenda 21 programs, it may just be rape with a different modus operandi.
It has nothing to do with how "populated" an area is. You miss the point. These people are claiming to be in favor of conservation of the land, yet their own actions are not in any way an action to do such.
Landowners have culpability to use the land without destroying it.
How would you describe them? As Republican looters or communists?
Bull, I didn't miss the point. I get it.
Here, when people don't like the view onto whatever a ''neighbor'' is doing and it bothers them, it's called "borrowing somebody else's open space. They want a say in how the acreage is used, even though they don't own it. I do mean out in the country.
Some people here are horrified if an older farmer wants to sell the farm for housing.The existing home owners don't want to have to see those new houses. In some cases they do get together as a group and buy and manage a buffer. Works well and all are happy. Most of our zoning and restrictions have to do with health and safety...as MT said. Run off onto some on else's property or into water of any kind is a big one here, whether it's construction dirt, mushroom soil, fertilizer, chicken and cow manure or industrial chemical waste. Odors are another. The towns have more restrictions. Outdoor storage is very controlled. It's one of the reasons we don't have rat problems in most residential areas. People who move here are made knowledgeable about the rules. They are welcome to choose not to buy and live somewhere else if they don't like it.
True junk isn't allowed to pile up. But the city truck will come haul anything away. All we have to do is call, no charge. Yes, I know you aren't interested, but I really didn't come from the moon. I lived in the country for 21 years and had Colonial Pipeline run right behind the our grapevines when I was a kid. Now that was interesting to watch.
Red, you have a kind word for everyone doncha? ::)
Diane, so you know. I have been in your area. It is a shame what people have done to that part of the country. Such beautiful country with such defamation. That is what the posters you dislike are trying to prevent here.
Quote from: Bullwinkle on November 30, 2012, 10:01:16 PM
That is what the posters you dislike are trying to prevent here.
Among other things.
Now back up that comment! I never said I didn't like these posters.Like or dislike has nothing to do with these issues now does it?
I don't care for much that has happened here either ,but when the farmers have nobody who wants continue on ,they sell their land. That is their privilege also isn't it? Should the Gov't interfere?
The population has tripled here ,or more, since I was a kid. Almost all the farms that were our neighbors growing up, have sold off to houses. In fact one of the biggest builders, Charlie Wilkinson, a friend and classmate, grew up on a huge dairy farm near me. It all started off with his grandfather, who I remember plowing with his team on the property, (which we later bought) that adjoined ours. He would stop if I was outside so I could pet his horses. He had huge tracts of land that went back to Penn Grants.
Now his sons kept farming the old property. One grandson bought a huge dairy farm out near Gettysburg. The others didn't want to farm, so eventually they sold off their land to Charlie, who then developed it. So who is going to stop it? Without planning and land swaps, that is a natural progression.
My one girl friend, who grew up on a big farm near Smyrna is facing the same thing.
Her father died recently and the farm will be sold, hopefully to another farmer, but Pat isn't sure at this point. None of the 5 daughters married farmers.
Now what would you do? Have Gov't interference to save the farm? That's not right either. But the quality of the land is much different here too. We don't have salt water underlying the ground that way it can be out there...We don't have the oil either. Except for the pipeline,which I could never figure out how to tap into. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am not so sure that what is happening in Elk County is that: They were against it, now they are for it. (it being the topic of choice).
I see a wishy-washy spineless commision group that can't agree on what they want, then when they do it gets nderminded by a directive from one ballsy comissioner.
That is not a leading group for the whole of the county. (don't get me started on Elk School System)
"Do as I say, not as I do" come to mind?
Wow, either Elk county is going to hell in a hnd basket at the comissioner's vote, or else information on here is only 1/2 the truth. (There is your truth as you see it, my truth as I see it, and the facts, which may or may not encompass both or none.)
>>>>>>flailing arms, "Danger Will, Danger!"
I would preferable like to read substantiated facts.
ready or not
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
On the one hand people don't want any zoning or planning or restrictions of any kind.Then some are mad if a few people are able to make money off their land in a way other than what is "usual " in the area.
Then there are the ''borrow someone elses view" folks which seem to be springing up where you are. It smacks of all the growing pains we went through here. Eventually when it is all done, one group wins and one loses. Somebody will be mad regardless.
and the 'new/old' topics begins again!
Can't wait!
ready
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 01, 2012, 12:47:03 PM
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
If the issue in this thread were about 'develop vs don't develop', you would be spot on. But the issue here is really about self serving hypocrisy: To develop (using the power of government & taxpayer money) and then work to control/limit others' opportunity to do the same vs individual liberty and equal opportunity for all to do the same.
You are right, I suppose... it will be interesting... locally, regionally & nationally.
" We shall overcome " Great song.
There are always so many variables in land ownership, I don't think the opportunity for all to have the same equal chance will ever happen, no matter how it is done. There will always be people who will have more than others.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 02, 2012, 07:33:49 PM
There are always so many variables in land ownership, I don't think the opportunity for all to have the same equal chance will ever happen, no matter how it is done. There will always be people who will have more than others.
That actually makes it fair... if a person is able to perform work and use his earnings to purchase a ton of land, more than others, that is fair as they worked to do it. If they forcefully take the land or in some way violate a person's rights to get the land that is not fair and should be punished by the government. If the government tries to make everyone have equal land that is not fair and the politicians should be punished. Simple.
QuoteThat actually makes it fair... if a person is able to perform work and use his earnings to purchase a ton of land, more than others, that is fair as they worked to do it. If they forcefully take the land or in some way violate a person's rights to get the land that is not fair and should be punished by the government. If the government tries to make everyone have equal land that is not fair and the politicians should be punished. Simple.
With that statement, I agree. How about that "eminent domain" clause? I believe that has been overused and for personal gains.
ready...(edited)
Quote from: readyaimduck on December 03, 2012, 09:04:56 PMHow about that "eminent domain" clause? I believe that has been overused and for personal gains.
First, just because this is part of the reason why that clause (and so many others) is a problem, I'd like to make it clear that the Supreme Court has absolutely NO Constitutional power whatsoever to "interpret" the Constitution. So called conservatives/republicans are guilty of saying the SCOTUS has interpretation powers when it absolutely does not.
As far as the clause, if the government(s) would simply do their job and follow the Constitution as it is written, and it is written in perfectly crystal clear, perfectly understandable English... they would understand without any doubt that it CLEARLY says
public use with just compensation. If the land is being used for anything other than public use, like for instance parks, roads, etc., or they take the the land and give it to a private individual or business, that is absolutely, clearly, without a doubt unconstitutional. The politicians that violate that clause should, at an absolute minimum, be punished for perjury as it is a clear violation of their oath but should also be punished as laid out in U.S.C. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 (18 USC 241, 18 USC 242) where, if there are two or more conspiring to or doing so, can be fined not more than $10,000 and/or imprisoned not more than 10 years or if it is just one person not more than $1,000 and/or not more than 1 year imprisonment.
Sadly, however, the SCOTUS long ago adopted a policy (however unconstitutional the results) of relying on stare decicis. That is an almost absolute reliance on the infallibility of prior court decisions RATHER than weighing the issues in a case individually against the clear meaning of the Constitution. The recent Kelo v New London decision essentially made the taking of private property and giving it to a private developer proper use of eminent domain if the 'transfer' would result in development that generates higher property tax revenues for government. On its face, plainly unconstitutional (no public use of the taken property), in reality a death blow to private property rights as now the simple increase in value and taxes were deemed 'public use'. And stare decisis will perpetuate the travesty in future cases.
Even more troublesome is the fact that average citizens are either too disengaged or too ignorant to see it at all.
Seeing as how private land ownership is a major indicator of wealth, and the goal of our government is to redistribute that wealth, this should come as no surprise. Besides if you eliminate private ownership of land then the occupants of that land have no ground to stand on when the government tells them to move. Can you say Agenda 21 boys and girls?
Quote from: Varmit on December 05, 2012, 05:06:01 PM
...Can you say Agenda 21 boys and girls?
Ahhh, Marxism by any other name. Agenda 21 is what the Communist Manifesto looks like when you varnish it real well, polish it, & wrap it in modern Progressive language. Elitist crony's operating to their personal advantage while oppressing opportunity for other, lesser, beings. All in the name of saving the world. After all, they know what's best.
The failures (and dangers) of Socialism & Communism aren't taught in government schools any more, are they? Wait, a survey last week showed that 55% of Demoncrats and 23% of Republicans have a favorable view of socialism (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-53-percent-democrats-have-positive-image-socialism (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-53-percent-democrats-have-positive-image-socialism)).
We've come a long way Mrs. Robinson.