Mark explains two approaches to dealing with loud generators. This video shows the protections we have in place today and contrasts them with the proposals for the future.

Last Monday, the commission voted to put together a resolution to create a planning committee with the idea that it could eventually become the zoning committee when they implement zoning. It sounds like they want to try to vote to approve it today on August 11th.

After listening to all the zoning discussions in the community meetings, I am convinced that there is a potential future where zoning could be implemented in the county that would not be harmful and might even provide some benefits. Even with perfect execution, I’m not sure it is worth it. But either way, just because something is possible does not necessarily mean it is probable. So the real question is, how likely is Bourbon County to end up with zoning that is not harmful if implemented today? The answer for today is very near 0%. It might be different in the future, but right now, every piece of evidence we have indicates that implementing zoning would be a fiasco.

Does that sound like a bold statement? Not really. All we have to do is look at a few recent situations that are much less complex than zoning and use the outcome of those situations to project what would happen if zoning is implemented today.

First, let’s consider the recent lawsuit where the county lost by default. When a lawsuit comes to the county, it is supposed to make its way to the county counselor, and they will show up for the hearing date and defend the county.  Despite receiving a summons, despite knowing that the lawsuit was in process, and despite the hearing date being clearly posted to kscourts.gov, no one showed up to represent the county. It isn’t exactly clear why, and for the purposes of my argument here, it doesn’t matter. The point is that the county is struggling to function in what should be a very trivial matter of showing up to defend against a lawsuit when the judge schedules a hearing.

But maybe that was just a fluke. Do we have any other similar situations?

Let’s consider a second example: the issue of the Southeast Kansas Regional Juvenile Detention Center.  In June, the Sheriff’s department suggested that the county could save money by switching to a different provider. Later in June, the county learned that it owns 1/10th of the detention center—ownership that would be forfeited if they pull out of the contract. Not only does the county own part of the detention center, but one of the commissioners is on the board that sets the prices. Unfortunately, he has never attended any of the board meetings.

Later in July, the commissioners voted to cancel the contract, but they missed the July 1st deadline by about 20 days, so the county is stuck in the contract until 2027.  Was it a good idea to cancel the contract? I have no idea. But I do know that if you are on the board that sets the price and you don’t like the price, the first thing to do is to show up for the board meetings. And, if for some reason you actually do have enough information to know it is a good idea to cancel, it seems like it would have been a good idea to not miss the date by 20 days so you are committed for another year. And if you do miss the date by 20 days, it might make sense to attend at least one board meeting before you vote to cancel the contract.

The list goes on. Now when I look at these types of situations, I don’t see a commission that is necessarily doing a bad job. I see a commission that is new. There is a huge body of knowledge they are trying to acquire quickly. Based on their past work history, it is unlikely they are going to have much prior experience to draw from. That isn’t criticism, it is just pointing out that there is a lot to do and learn, and it is reasonable to expect some missteps along the way as they find their footing.

However, we can also look at these types of situations and get a pretty good idea of what type of results the county will have to live with if they move forward with creating a planning committee as a step toward implementing zoning. The county commission is struggling with basic functions like showing up for a lawsuit, showing up for board meetings of county-owned entities, and deciding on issues before contracts lock you in for another year. These are things that have a high probability of being handled correctly once the commissioners acquire the experience and knowledge they need to effectively do their jobs. Implementing zoning has a very high probability of doing injury to the county and a small chance of being done in a way that is beneficial—even once they have experience. Without experience, we can easily extrapolate the expected results.

Imagine you are Houdini’s manager and he wants to do a stunt where he is fastened in chains, put in a box, and dumped in the ocean. If many of his attempts to do the stunt on land result in failure, you would be wise to caution him against doing the far more risky version underwater. Once he has a solid track record of escaping his bonds on land, then the underwater version starts having a chance of being successful.

Until the commissioners have a track record of handling the basic functions, they shouldn’t launch a planning committee taking steps toward something that has a high degree of risk. The two examples I listed above give the expected, most probable outcome if they decide to do it before.

Mark Shead

Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to [email protected]. 

After attending all the community meetings by the zoning advisory committee, there were a few things that stood out. In particular, it was very interesting to hear the different views of property rights and how much control individuals feel they should have over what their neighbors are allowed to do with their land.

One individual explained that when he burns his grass, he sometimes loses control of the fire and burns off his neighbor’s field as well. Right now, he didn’t seem to think it was any big deal, but if his neighbor was to put up solar panels (or presumably anything else valuable), his out-of-control fires might cause damage. The actual destruction didn’t seem to be a concern, but he was worried his fire-burning practices might make his insurance rates go up.  He wanted zoning implemented to keep his neighbor from being able to install solar panels. By the same logic, he’d probably oppose someone building a valuable house across the road from his land or anything else that might require any change in his fire-burning habits to avoid destroying his neighbor’s property.

Other people explained that they had bought their small hobby farm because they liked the way the neighbor’s land looked and didn’t want to see it change from the pretty fields they were used to looking out. They wanted zoning so they wouldn’t have to look at solar panels. Others said that they felt their house was more valuable because it looked out over their neighbor’s pastureland, and if the neighbor decided to put in something different, their view wouldn’t be as nice, and that might make their house not be worth as much. They wanted county zoning to make sure their neighbor kept their fields looking the way that they think makes their house the most valuable.

What is fascinating about all these positions is the shift it represents in the belief that the property owner has a right to use their land as they see fit. Instead, they see that right as being diminished from what is normally expected, and instead, neighbors have an increased right to determine what the property owner is allowed to do with their land.

In the late 1800s, Kansas had a similar issue, but back then it was driven by the invention of barbed wire. Cattle owners who were used to letting cattle run free weren’t particularly excited about farmers and ranchers who were putting fences around the land they owned. The range ranchers felt they had a right to run their cattle on their neighbor’s land, and this disagreement launched the “fence cutting wars.” From the perspective of the free-range cattle owners, it didn’t matter who owned the land. They had a right to their neighbor’s land in a way that was impeded by fencing.

The “fence cutting wars” were eventually settled in favor of property owners. The current difference of opinions on how much control people should have over what your neighbor’s land looks like (or how much effort you should be expected to expend avoiding catching it on fire) might eventually be resolved with the pendulum swung the other way.

Mark Shead

Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to [email protected]. 

In the Zoning Meeting in Fulton on Tuesday night, I raised a concern that there seems to be a big difference between what two members of the committee (Brian Ashworth and Brian Wade) think zoning will accomplish. (See Two Brians, Two Views Of Zoning) It is very different for anyone to form any coherent opinion of zoning when the committee has polar opposite ideas of what it will actually do in Bourbon County. What I stated in the meeting was:

“Brian Ashworth said it won’t prevent anything, just make sure there are common-sense guidelines being followed. For example, with solar, it might require setbacks from neighboring buildings, EMS training, or fully funded decommissioning agreements. However, Brian Wade has said that zoning is the tool to keep landowners from leasing their land to solar companies. These are two very very different goals. Mr. Ashworth thinks zoning will be a scalpel to carefully shape the way landowners use their land, Mr. Wade thinks it is a sledgehammer that will dictate what can and can’t be done.”

When I said this, Mr. Wade shook his head as if I was misrepresenting him. I want to make sure I correctly represent him, so I went back to find the video. It is hard to hear because it was recorded on a cell phone, since at this point they were not streaming their meetings, so the mics at the table weren’t being used.

Here is what Mr. Wade said:

“ My neighbor hit me up this morning at the gas station. He lives in Linn County, and, uh, him and another partner farm a bunch around us and he said if it wasn’t for zoning in Linn County, he’d have 5,000 solar or 5,000 acres around their house off of 52 highway.”

My best understanding of his statement is that the land owners who wanted to lease their land for non-agricultural use (to solar companies) were stopped by the fact Linn County is zoned.  The result of zoning wasn’t to simply require a certain amount of setback or a decommissioning agreement. It didn’t provide some type of”common-sense” guidelines. Instead, he seems to indicate that they were prohibited from using their land how they wished.

If you want zoning to be used as a tool to keep solar out as Mr.Wade said it did in Linn County, then you should be concerned by Mr. Ashcroft’s view that it won’t do that.

If you support zoning because you feel it will still let land owners do what they want with their land as long as they follow “common-sense guidelines,” then you should be concerned when Mr. Wade indicates it is the mechanism that prohibits certain land use.

The point in my statement on Tuesday was that, despite trying to understand what zoning would mean for Bourbon County, I have no basis for forming any logical opinion on the topic because I have no idea what it would mean for land use other than farming and cattle.  Based on the differences between what members of the zoning advisory committe have said zoning will do, it appears I’m  in good company.

Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to [email protected].                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Up until last week, the zoning advisory committee remained shrouded in mystery for everyone except those who could find the time to attend in person. No minutes have been published, and the meetings were not streamed to the public like advisory committees have been under previous commissioners. (See Commissioner Beerbower’s explanation of his view of the Zoning Advisory Committee as a democracy vs. the need for transparency.)

The veil was ripped last Wednesday when FortScott.biz streamed the meeting. Looking through the hole that had been torn in the opaqueness, those of us who couldn’t physically attend the meetings got our first look at the workings of that committee and the things being discussed that had formerly been obscured from the public view. So maybe that is a bit dramatic, but the point remains, the public was now able to see what was happening with the same level of transparency as city and previous county advisory committees.

For me, the statements made by two people named Brian on the Zoning Advisory Committee (Brian Ashworth and Brian Wade) provide the best illustration of the fundamental disagreement between members of the committee (and possibly the public and commissioners) when it comes to zoning. Understanding these two views of people who support zoning is key in any thoughtful discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of implementing zoning, as Beerbower says, the commission has already established they will do.

Brian Ashworth stated that the goal of zoning is not to prevent anyone from doing what they want to with their land. He said the purpose of zoning is to make sure a landowner wanting to put in something commercial or industrial would need to follow some guidelines to be a good neighbor, but it wouldn’t stop them from using their land as they see fit.

This sounds completely reasonable and could mean things like, if a landowner is going to put in a field of solar panels, they might be asked to put a row of trees between the panels and their neighbor’s house. Or maybe it would mean asking the solar company to locate battery arrays 500 feet or more from neighboring property and make sure the fire department is comfortable with understanding what to do in the rare, but still possible, event of a fire from the electrical systems or the situation most of us have experience where a neighbor’s field being burned that gets out of control if it happens to threaten the solar field. Those types of suggestions probably fall into the common-sense type of things that would happen on their own among neighbors who are actually looking for reasonable accommodation. Maybe zoning helps make those conversations more likely. Sounds reasonable, right?

However, Brian Wade offered a different view of the purpose of the zoning committee. He talked with admiration about how Lynn County’s zoning was able to prevent landowners from renting their land out to solar companies. He didn’t talk about how the zoning laws allowed the county to guide installations with some best practices for fire preparedness. He didn’t talk about how zoning allowed some reasonable setbacks that gave neighbors some nice trees to look at. No, he talked about how great it was that zoning had been used as a tool to prevent the landowners from leasing their land.

Mr. Wade’s goals as presented in the meeting were completely different from Mr. Ashworth’s stated goals.

If you want zoning to be a tool to prohibit landowners from using their land in legal ways that you don’t want, then Mr. Wade’s goals probably match yours. If you want zoning to be a process that helps guarantee good communication and reasonable accommodations between neighbors, then Mr. Ashworth’s goals probably align with what you want.

However, the bigger question is this: If zoning is implemented, what will we actually get?

(Note: Commission Mika Milburn says she will have the meeting streamed on May 13th, so hopefully the process will be more transparent going forward & kudos to her for trying to bring the transparency of these meetings back to the same level of previous commissioners.)