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].