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]. 

It’s a duck call to a mallard, a 75% off Instagram sale to a shopaholic, a box of Godiva chocolates to most of my friends.  Irresistible.  Enticing.  A guaranteed, surefire, “once in a lifetime opportunity.”  Never has a friend’s “O-I-A-L-O” investment given me anything but a migraine and a depleted bank account.  The invitation to ride a donkey to the depths of the Grand Canyon on a path only inches wider than the beast’s belly doesn’t mean I saddle up. And how many sets of knives do I need as a result of the “special ends in one hour” ploy?  Once-in-a-lifetime-opportunities have led to bankruptcy, divorce and even death (in which case, granted, the definition is literal).

Now, do I believe there are legitimate “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunities?  Absolutely. Every day God allows us to cross paths with people we will never see again who need to hear the gospel. Our family’s trip to the mission field in Africa taught me that doing without “things” gives me time to hang with God. Spending hours every day with my mother in the nursing home showed me how fragile life can be and how those who dined with her one meal can have funerals a few days later.  There were chances to talk to them about Jesus.

Sometimes I did.  But not always. After all, there’s always tomorrow…

Now, that’s foolishness.  The Bible is chock full of decisions that had to be made on the spot, but Matthew 25 is a great analogy of the need for immediacy.  Ten virgins have carried their lamps to meet the bridegroom. Only five took extra oil with them. When the bridegroom failed to show up, the ten fell asleep, waking only when he was a short distance away.   The foolish virgins found their lamps dimming and asked for the wise to share.  Let’s pick it up in verse nine.

“‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’  But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.  Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’   “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.”

The point cannot be dismissed.

If we dilly-dally, thinking we’ll make Jesus our Lord “someday,” we are fools.  This day, this moment, might be our only chance to take Jesus up on his offer.  As for guaranteed, surefire “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunities, it doesn’t get much more legitimate than that.