Just watch the latest city council meeting starting at about minute 11 and again around the 19 minute mark..
As someone that only knows the RAID member (being talked about in the video that was a possible appointee to the city Planning and Zoning commission) based on what I have observed the gentleman say at local public meetings, I honestly do not know the man or have ever had any kind of conversation with him before... for all I know he is the sweetest man to ever walk the face of the earth... but at public meetings (either city of Kingman or Mohave County variety) he rarely makes a damn bit of sense.
I missed what went on at the prior City Council meeting when Sandi Reynolds was selected by the council to fill the seat vacated on the city Planning and Zoning commission, but between the choices that were moved to be considered... Councilman Lyons and the rest made the right decision in my opinion.
I enjoyed watching the majority of RAID members speak at the most recent call to the public. I've met a couple of the individual members of RAID and each time found each individual member to be genuine and courteous... but together as a group, I (and a whole lot of others around the city) disagree with the stance that RAID has taken on some important issues. Truth be told Mr. Lyons gave that group a taste of their own medicine.
Seriously, they do the same stuff, you've heard members of this group go negative talking about developers, builders, etc. What councilman Lyons said is no different, and he certainly has his Constitutional right to disagree with a community group such as RAID.
Buck up kids.
Hopefully by now Councilman Lyons and the vast RAID organization has had themselves a cup of java or two by now and this episode blows over.
Showing posts with label P and Z. Show all posts
Showing posts with label P and Z. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
More Kingman Daily Loyd crap...
Why?? Just because (it is a popular answer from the water worry warts these days). Here is the latest from the comments on his blog...
There is comedy gold to be had right here after this paragraph. No, seriously, there is... but I'm going to leave it be.
First, the KDLoyd.com wrote something about me being all ego-centric and all... as in I shouldn't suppose that at least some parts of his latest blog post really do not have anything to do with me whatsoever. Well, since I coined the label pinning term 'water worry warts' (comes up third in a Google search that leads you to this post from July 2nd of this year)... I sorta took some umbrage to his blog post and responded, to which I was lectured by the KDLoyd. My bad, dude.
Now since in fact I am a so called 'label pinner' allow me to show everyone how I responded to the news of the P&Z commission voting in favor of two agenda items from this post...
Sadly, I guess, I think the roosters got one on me here. As you can see, I'm clearly not doing the chicken dance. I've never called for silence from the other side of this issue. In fact I wanted to hear them out and in some ways I believe they made some significant points.
The pro-growth crowd has a long way to go for real a footing on important issues. We are simply not nearly engaged or organized enough to have any confidence that the elected leaders will side with us on what we believe are important issues (private property rights, supporting free enterprise, common sense, etc.)... not yet anyway.
Back to the KDLoyd stuff...
Silent majority?? I didn't see the fair KDLoyd at either P&Z meeting so I'll inform him that there was a majority there and they weren't silent. The meeting dragged on for over a week, many hours worth of public input was delivered by the majority and they did not use silence as a tactic.
Also, the KDLoyd has proudly expressed his support for the district 1 Mohave County Supervisor, Gary Watson, at times. Says he even helped Mr. Watson gain victory in the election. This is the same Gary Watson that is likely to cast his vote also in approval for the same agenda items covered at the P&Z meetings... I base that on this article from the KDMiner.com's website. I'll share a clip from that article below...
Again... Mr. Watson is Loyd's guy.
Leave your hat in the ring there Loyd... you see I'm ready to throw my hat down into the rink once the hat trick for approvals on the biofuel plant and the two solar plants are complete.
Back to the KDLoyd stuff for one final bit...
Basically when all else fails in trying to make a point... settle on scare tactics. Oh noez!! The sky is falling!! There won't be any water in the next millennium!! That new plant thingy will blow up!! More people might live in my neighborhood!!
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2009
Article comment by: Loyd
As a 5yr old kid I used to go out in the chicken yard and watch the roosters strut around after they had just been amorous with the girls. They do this cocky strut thing with their neck feathers all fluffed up making a bunch of deep-throated clucking sounds.
There is comedy gold to be had right here after this paragraph. No, seriously, there is... but I'm going to leave it be.
These label pinners are doing precisely the same thing, less the neck feathers of course, since the county P&Z did their customary trashing of the general plan Wednesday. The pinners act as if they have just planted a seed and the birth of new industrial plants is now virtually assured.
First, the KDLoyd.com wrote something about me being all ego-centric and all... as in I shouldn't suppose that at least some parts of his latest blog post really do not have anything to do with me whatsoever. Well, since I coined the label pinning term 'water worry warts' (comes up third in a Google search that leads you to this post from July 2nd of this year)... I sorta took some umbrage to his blog post and responded, to which I was lectured by the KDLoyd. My bad, dude.
Now since in fact I am a so called 'label pinner' allow me to show everyone how I responded to the news of the P&Z commission voting in favor of two agenda items from this post...
I was there this morning for the public input on item number 13A. I was there last week as well and I must commend everyone that spoke either for or against the issue. While I am biased on this issue (in the 'for' category), I think both sides did well in front of the commission.
Sadly, I guess, I think the roosters got one on me here. As you can see, I'm clearly not doing the chicken dance. I've never called for silence from the other side of this issue. In fact I wanted to hear them out and in some ways I believe they made some significant points.
The pro-growth crowd has a long way to go for real a footing on important issues. We are simply not nearly engaged or organized enough to have any confidence that the elected leaders will side with us on what we believe are important issues (private property rights, supporting free enterprise, common sense, etc.)... not yet anyway.
Back to the KDLoyd stuff...
I will leave my hat in the ring with the silent majority here in Kingman. They are not vocal or boisterous, but they can be a formidable force in the voting booth. I think they have a very good cumulative memory for the performance along the way of those they entrust with the helm of our local governments. When the ship goes off course, they will right it -- of that you can be sure.
Silent majority?? I didn't see the fair KDLoyd at either P&Z meeting so I'll inform him that there was a majority there and they weren't silent. The meeting dragged on for over a week, many hours worth of public input was delivered by the majority and they did not use silence as a tactic.
Also, the KDLoyd has proudly expressed his support for the district 1 Mohave County Supervisor, Gary Watson, at times. Says he even helped Mr. Watson gain victory in the election. This is the same Gary Watson that is likely to cast his vote also in approval for the same agenda items covered at the P&Z meetings... I base that on this article from the KDMiner.com's website. I'll share a clip from that article below...
The whole issue revolves around private property rights, he said. It's not fair to say no to these businesses who want to invest in the county. They have as much right to develop their property as anyone else in the county, he said.
When asked why the county couldn't use the County Planning and Zoning ordinances to show that a project wasn't a fit for a particular area. Watson countered with a question of his own: how can the county tell one property owner that they can't rezone their property to make a profit and then turn around and let another rezone their property?
"We have to be fair to all," he said.
Again... Mr. Watson is Loyd's guy.
Leave your hat in the ring there Loyd... you see I'm ready to throw my hat down into the rink once the hat trick for approvals on the biofuel plant and the two solar plants are complete.
Back to the KDLoyd stuff for one final bit...
The only worry is that a lot of damage can be done which, in some cases, may not be reversible. I have not seen a time in over 60 years here where this area has been under such a great risk.
Basically when all else fails in trying to make a point... settle on scare tactics. Oh noez!! The sky is falling!! There won't be any water in the next millennium!! That new plant thingy will blow up!! More people might live in my neighborhood!!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
News Update re: proposed biofuels plant in Kingman (updated)
Earlier today the Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission approved item 13A on the agenda; a minor amendment to the Mohave County general plan.
Right now, I guess, the meeting continues to hear item number 13B; a zoning use permit for the same project.
I was there this morning for the public input on item number 13A. I was there last week as well and I must commend everyone that spoke either for or against the issue. While I am biased on this issue (in the 'for' category), I think both sides did well in front of the commission.
While I was not able to stay for this afternoons proceedings, maybe someone that is there will provide an update on the commission's findings when the meeting is over. Please comment below, or if you have recently joined the writing staff here at MOCO -- blog about it in a new post.
A good day for property rights in Mohave County and Arizona today. More to come.
Update:
County P&Z also approved the other item on the agenda yesterday. Here is more on what took place yesterday from the KDMiner.com site. Please be sure to read the comments. Good stuff.
Right now, I guess, the meeting continues to hear item number 13B; a zoning use permit for the same project.
I was there this morning for the public input on item number 13A. I was there last week as well and I must commend everyone that spoke either for or against the issue. While I am biased on this issue (in the 'for' category), I think both sides did well in front of the commission.
While I was not able to stay for this afternoons proceedings, maybe someone that is there will provide an update on the commission's findings when the meeting is over. Please comment below, or if you have recently joined the writing staff here at MOCO -- blog about it in a new post.
A good day for property rights in Mohave County and Arizona today. More to come.
Update:
County P&Z also approved the other item on the agenda yesterday. Here is more on what took place yesterday from the KDMiner.com site. Please be sure to read the comments. Good stuff.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Biofuel plant county meeting, part II
A friendly reminder that part two of the county P&Z meeting will be held tomorrow starting at 10:00am at the county building... subject matter is on the biofuels plant. Come on down and support private property rights, lend your voice to the discussion. If you are having difficulty remembering what transpired last week, here is an article given to me by Dave Hawkins that will appear in The Standard later this week.
Pro Growth Swell
Energy and expression in support of growth and development was clearly more evident at an August 12 meeting during which the Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on requests related to a biodiesel facility proposed about 20 miles north of Kingman.
Voices of opposition in recent months have dominated public hearings and meetings regarding billion-dollar-plus solar power projects and the $20-million dollar biodiesel plant that Sun West Biofuels LLC wants to build on a 15 1/2-acre site just outside the Route 66 community of Valle Vista. Mayor John Salem, City Council member Robin Gordon and a number of other Kingman area residents pushed a different point view, telling the County Commission that employment and other economic benefits must be weighed in the debate.
``I realize that there's only about 20 jobs that may come from this (biodiesel plant) but the reality is, as you all know, is this is just really the tip of the spear of an enormous amount of green development that's going to happen here in Mohave County," Ken Herskind told the Commission. ``We have an opportunity here to either open our door for business and opportunity for our citizens or to slam it shut. There's billions of dollars of development literally on our doorstep."
Justin Chambers said he's also tired of the anti-development attitude.
``I come to these meetings and time and time again I see the same people opposing anything that will bring growth to town," Chambers said. ``People my age have families to support and it's not fair what you guys are doing to us here. We don't have pensions and social security to rely on."
Cherish Sammeli added that young adults are leaving the area in pursuit of employment.
``My age demographic is slowly disappearing in this community," Sameli said. ``There are a lack of jobs, people are forced to relocate and there are not enough job opportunities available to choose from."
A number of Valle Vista residents hammered home their point that they are not opposed to growth or development and have no issue with biodiesel production. They said they mostly oppose the proposed location of the facility.
They said they were concerned about dangerous chemicals that would be used in the operation and argued the plant should be built at either the Kingman Airport Industrial Park or somewhere in the I-40 corridor in the Yucca area.
``The people who are for this project aren't going to live anywhere near this," one Valle Vista woman said. ``The ones who really care about their neighborhood in Valle Vista don't want the project because of the possibility of fire and the possibility of explosion."
Project Manager Rick Neal reiterated his position that the biodiesel plant will be safe, green and clean.
``There will be no hazardous waste of any kind. We will use no water in our production," Neal said. ``This is a closed loop system. We will be emitting no pollutants or smell into the atmosphere."
Several Valle Vista residents complained they moved into a rural setting to gain distance from industry and didn't want such businesses encroaching upon them. 50-year Kingman resident Shay Givans argued that Neal has property rights as well, and should be free to develop his land provided he's in compliance with all rules and regulations.
Richard Basinger, attorney for the Valle Vista Property Owners Association, countered that Neal currently enjoys no property right beyond the agricultural designation afforded under the general plan. Basinger urged Commission rejection of the request to amend the general plan to allow the biodiesel plant under a heavy manufacturing designation.
Other plant opponents, with support from Commission members Bill Abbott and Carl Flusche, expressed worry that the requested general plan amendment could open the floodgates for less desirable heavy industries.
``If you allow this, it's going to get a foothold and it will continue and the footprint will get a lot larger," agreed Frank Lee.
Bob Taylor, a civil division deputy county attorney, clarified that land use designations under a plan amendment do not change underlying zoning. Other heavy industrial projects, he said, would require additional zone changes or Zoning Use Permits (ZUP) for development and operation.
Commission and county staff members provided some comment but statements from 30 citizens dominated the 90-minute long public hearing. The Commission did not vote on the plan amendment or the ZUP sought for the biodiesel facility.
The matters will be considered during a special August 19 meeting of the Commission.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Heh...
Hey folks... it's me, your humble spin Meister and propaganda minister here.
It seems that my little post from yesterday motivated a couple of folks at the Miner's website to start tossing out labels and hilarious allegations at my direction. No problem though, I enjoyed the laugh.
I responded to one comment post that appeared on the mayors blog site at the KDMiner.com which I'll link to again here.
But I thought it would be fun to respond to the other post here on my site. It comes from KDMiner blogger and all around good guy Loyd. It starts like this...
And if Loyd had been on the City Council he would have assuredly voted against me when my name was motioned and seconded for appointment to the commission. Instead of being appointed by a vote of 6-1 in favor, I would have been appointed by a vote of 5-2. I'll say this again, there is no one in this community more surprised by my appointment to the P&Z commission than me. I am still very honored and humbled. I willingly serve on the commission at the pleasure of the elected leaders and will do so as long as they have me. It is their gig, not mine.
Loyd, I apologize to you for having the passion I do on the rights property owners are afforded, I'm never dispassionate in those terms. As far as 'fair and open-minded' is concerned... that's very subjective and probably the main reason why the panel of commissioners is made up of seven members and not left in the hands of a planning and zoning czar.
Loyd is correct here. I was willing to copy and paste the comment from the project manager that works for the developer. I even went so far as to make the offer to do so. It is not my quote, I do not own it. If you, Loyd, or anyone else has a problem with it... fine by me. Like you and most all others that live in Kingman, save for two elected office holders and some paid city officials, I was not at the meeting so I have no idea what the hell went on there.
If Vice-Mayor Watson, Council Member Lyons, the attorney that the city hired to help with possible negotiations, or the other city officials want to send me, via email, their interpretations of the meeting held on February 9th in Phoenix that they attended... I'll gladly post them here on my blog.
Of course I wouldn't have to make this offer, or even would have had to post the email from the developer, if the media in Kingman -- namely the Miner -- could have somehow found the time to get a few quotes from the parties that attended the meeting. Like it or not... the issues involving Kingman Crossing are a big deal in this community. Getting some progress updates from time to time would be nice.
Loyd I'm not surprised that you see it this way and really I don't care. Most rational people that may have been following along now with my writing on this subject (all 40 of you, thanks) know that I view this as a property rights issue. Wind turbines are not a self interest for me, I don't want one on my property.
Again, as a commissioner on the planning and zoning panel, I am one of seven (yet of the two agenda items put in front of that panel since I joined, both were approved unanimously... go figure).
Any type of development Loyd?? I've already voted to deny a developers request to change zoning in their favor... but facts, often times for you, seem to be irrelevant.
However, here is where your comment is correct. Does the proposed development issue lead to additional jobs in the community?? "Yes" will be the championed cry. Will the proposed development issue lead to improved community services and quality of life?? "Yes" will be the championed cry. Will the proposed development issue lead to more investment into our community?? Once again "Yes" will be the championed cry.
Yet no matter what, as a commissioner on the panel, I will only be one of seven and if I'm actually this extremist you're attempting to make me out to be... my vote will be in the clear minority.
Chance are very good that Loyd voted for this 'Pro-Growth' mayor he speaks of. Also, it seems to me that Loyd has issues with 'Pro-Growth' agenda items... but don't you dare label him non growth friendly.
As far as any 'grooming' is concerned, the only contacts that I have received from the city are the ones that remind me of either the ride-a-round inspection the Thursday before the P&Z meeting or for the actual P&Z meeting.
Before responding to this one I googled 'grease the skids'.
From here...
Also from here...
Heh. Guilty as charged then. I love facilitating open discussion on future development of the community.
It seems that my little post from yesterday motivated a couple of folks at the Miner's website to start tossing out labels and hilarious allegations at my direction. No problem though, I enjoyed the laugh.
I responded to one comment post that appeared on the mayors blog site at the KDMiner.com which I'll link to again here.
But I thought it would be fun to respond to the other post here on my site. It comes from KDMiner blogger and all around good guy Loyd. It starts like this...
It seems to me that a P&Z commissioner is supposed to be dispassionate and fair and open-mined.
And if Loyd had been on the City Council he would have assuredly voted against me when my name was motioned and seconded for appointment to the commission. Instead of being appointed by a vote of 6-1 in favor, I would have been appointed by a vote of 5-2. I'll say this again, there is no one in this community more surprised by my appointment to the P&Z commission than me. I am still very honored and humbled. I willingly serve on the commission at the pleasure of the elected leaders and will do so as long as they have me. It is their gig, not mine.
Loyd, I apologize to you for having the passion I do on the rights property owners are afforded, I'm never dispassionate in those terms. As far as 'fair and open-minded' is concerned... that's very subjective and probably the main reason why the panel of commissioners is made up of seven members and not left in the hands of a planning and zoning czar.
Todd Tarson, newly appointed with the strong support of Mayor Salem, seems to be a willing go-between carrying water and PR clips for out-of-town developers.
Loyd is correct here. I was willing to copy and paste the comment from the project manager that works for the developer. I even went so far as to make the offer to do so. It is not my quote, I do not own it. If you, Loyd, or anyone else has a problem with it... fine by me. Like you and most all others that live in Kingman, save for two elected office holders and some paid city officials, I was not at the meeting so I have no idea what the hell went on there.
If Vice-Mayor Watson, Council Member Lyons, the attorney that the city hired to help with possible negotiations, or the other city officials want to send me, via email, their interpretations of the meeting held on February 9th in Phoenix that they attended... I'll gladly post them here on my blog.
Of course I wouldn't have to make this offer, or even would have had to post the email from the developer, if the media in Kingman -- namely the Miner -- could have somehow found the time to get a few quotes from the parties that attended the meeting. Like it or not... the issues involving Kingman Crossing are a big deal in this community. Getting some progress updates from time to time would be nice.
Tarson is totally unabashed in his vocal support for anything goes wind turbine issues.
Loyd I'm not surprised that you see it this way and really I don't care. Most rational people that may have been following along now with my writing on this subject (all 40 of you, thanks) know that I view this as a property rights issue. Wind turbines are not a self interest for me, I don't want one on my property.
Again, as a commissioner on the planning and zoning panel, I am one of seven (yet of the two agenda items put in front of that panel since I joined, both were approved unanimously... go figure).
And, when it comes to any type of development issues – well – "Yes", "Yes", "Yes" will be the championed cry.
Any type of development Loyd?? I've already voted to deny a developers request to change zoning in their favor... but facts, often times for you, seem to be irrelevant.
However, here is where your comment is correct. Does the proposed development issue lead to additional jobs in the community?? "Yes" will be the championed cry. Will the proposed development issue lead to improved community services and quality of life?? "Yes" will be the championed cry. Will the proposed development issue lead to more investment into our community?? Once again "Yes" will be the championed cry.
Yet no matter what, as a commissioner on the panel, I will only be one of seven and if I'm actually this extremist you're attempting to make me out to be... my vote will be in the clear minority.
But, I guess a "groomed" commission, as a former city manager once described, is what a "Pro-Growth" Mayor would want in place for moving big development agendas forward.
Chance are very good that Loyd voted for this 'Pro-Growth' mayor he speaks of. Also, it seems to me that Loyd has issues with 'Pro-Growth' agenda items... but don't you dare label him non growth friendly.
As far as any 'grooming' is concerned, the only contacts that I have received from the city are the ones that remind me of either the ride-a-round inspection the Thursday before the P&Z meeting or for the actual P&Z meeting.
Tarson seems more than willing to "grease the skids".
Before responding to this one I googled 'grease the skids'.
From here...
1. grease the skids
get things started, to warm up; to get the ball rolling; to not get caught with your pants down
Jon wanted to grease the skids by sending out an email in advance of the meeting
Also from here...
Idiom Definitions for 'Grease the skids'
If you grease the skids, you facilitate something
Heh. Guilty as charged then. I love facilitating open discussion on future development of the community.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Would you sign a waiver??
The meeting for the planning and zoning commission only has two agenda items on it this month. One of them though deals with the ordinance for SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS, or those rascally wind turbines that make the news every so often.
Here is a link to the news article that appears today for tomorrow nights meeting.
I thought I'd share some of my thoughts heading into this subject matter.
First off, the purpose of the ordinance should be to promote safety as it concerns the citizens of Kingman. I agree 100% with that notion as a commissioner on the panel. Lesser parts of the ordinance should allow for effective and efficient uses of alternative energy systems that do not infringe on safety concerns.
My main concern as a citizen of Kingman though are my property rights. I see an alternative energy system as a potential benefit to my property. I can get into specifics, but it is best to just leave what I just said alone. My views as a property owner are just as subjective as any one else that owns property and should simply be respected.
Yet other folks desire these alternative energy sources be used because they deem them to be friendly to the environment, or as a means to reduce global warming (it is snowing today BTW Mr. Gore), or just to feel good about whatever it is that an alternative energy source can make a person feel good. Others are fed up with utility rate hikes (completely understand) and, like the current president, feel compelled to fix the air temperature in their home to whatever temperature that makes them feel happy and without guilt that they are killing the planet. Perhaps a wind turbine and/or some solar powered system will allow it to happen and they are willing to take some risks to improve their wants/needs.
The last group that has an interest in alternative energy sources is the providers of products that offer such things. Folks that participate in the free enterprise system that helped make this country so great.
Now for this agenda item, the city has included materials in the work book that I have read and reviewed. The materials included information from other municipalities, counties, and states that have drafted ordinances that deal with small wind energy systems. Some interesting ideas and perhaps some possible solutions may come out of the session tomorrow night.
I am going to discuss in this blog post a possible solution for the city to consider. I will do my best to make it simple, but I don't do simple as well I would like.
Let's go to the well debated yet seemingly confusing issue of setbacks. As mentioned earlier, the main impetus of such an ordinance from the city should be public safety. What we are talking about is what if the tower somehow fell over??
It would suck to be hanging out in your living room watching TV one moment and then in the next find a wind turbine crashing down through your roof. I get that, it is a legitimate concern.
Likewise, if you kept your prize pure bred canine outside, you wouldn't want your neighbors wind turbine crashing down on Sparky's dog house while he slept peacefully. Maybe you don't have a critter, maybe you just don't want anything to disturb your garden or clothes line... fine. As a property owner you have certain rights to quiet enjoyment and security that a wind turbine falling over could compromise.
So simply, make the setbacks equal to the measure of height of the tower multiplied by a factor of 1.5 for any other structure on any other property surrounding the applicants property. So if an applicant wanted a 200 foot tower, it would have to be at least 300 feet away from any other dwelling on any other lot surrounding the applicants property. Now the 200 foot tower example is purposely extreme in this example.
And if surrounding property owners don't want a tower to fall on their prize garden, then perhaps make the setback equal to the measure of height of the tower multiplied by a factor of 1.1 or some other agreed to factor.
I know, I know... adopting this ordinance would eliminate a clear majority of property owners from obtaining a small wind energy system that may want one within the tiny confines of the city limits . We must keep in mind though that the city must do all it can in terms of safety. So if a property owner knew that he/she has enough space on the property according to the ordinance, they just go right on about getting the product or service they desire. No favoritism, no exceptions, no conditional use permits.
So you don't have enough land space on your property for the required radius conditions of the ordinance... are you out of luck?? Not necessarily.
As you know, I'm a big proponent of private property rights and it is from this perspective that I draw conclusions for many of my opinions. So I ask this question... if I wanted a small wind energy system for my property (all of 8,800 square feet) but a 45 foot tower would potentially collapse on either my property, my neighbor to the east, or my neighbor to the north east, or on a public street to the east... who can possibly be affected by the potential collapse?? The answer of course is all of the above, but no one else.
Now if I wanted to put the tower up in the north east part of my backyard, the street to the east is taken out of the equation. Follow me for a second. Now I approach my two very nice neighbors and tell them of my plans to install a small wind energy system and if they were to agree that it wouldn't be a problem to them for me to place the tower in the location I specified, why would anyone else care??
I'm talking about a waiver policy of course. Something that the local ordinance does not have at this time. The following is an example of part of a waiver policy...
Adding this sort of waiver puts the decision back into the hands of the property owners instead of only the governing body. If the safety concerns are those of other property owners, it is those folks that should address the concerns. It also takes care of potential future property owners with the recording of the waivers on the property deed. Disclose, disclose, disclose.
My property does not adhere to the current zoning ordinance because it is not a half-acre or larger. As a property owner, I believe, that I should have every opportunity to improve my property as I desire as long as it does not affect the property rights of my neighbors. If my neighbors agree to the setback waivers I should be able to proceed.
Of course there is no guarantee that your neighbor would play nice and allow you the opportunity to put up a small wind energy system on your property because your neighbor may have a different perception of what is safe and what isn't in terms of a tall tower in the backyard. There are a couple of current city council members that have already stated at a public meeting that they wouldn't want their neighbors to have such monstrosities near their property... and that is their right as property owners. No one would force them to sign waivers (if the neighbor applicant didn't have enough land space to adhere to the ordinance).
I think a waiver policy is a must in order for the overall ordinance to work properly.
If the city settles on a policy where if a tower was to collapse only on the applicants property only, then permits should be issued for proper installment of a small wind energy system.
If your property does not adhere to the city ordinance but you have neighboring property owners that are possibly affected by the placement of the small wind energy system but are willing to grant you notarized recorded authorization for installation, you should be able to obtain the permit needed to move forward.
It seems as fair and equitable as possible. Protecting property rights must be a focus in our community.
I look forward to tomorrow's meeting, I might even bring some of this up for discussion purpose. Come on down and join that discussion. See ya there!!
Here is a link to the news article that appears today for tomorrow nights meeting.
I thought I'd share some of my thoughts heading into this subject matter.
First off, the purpose of the ordinance should be to promote safety as it concerns the citizens of Kingman. I agree 100% with that notion as a commissioner on the panel. Lesser parts of the ordinance should allow for effective and efficient uses of alternative energy systems that do not infringe on safety concerns.
My main concern as a citizen of Kingman though are my property rights. I see an alternative energy system as a potential benefit to my property. I can get into specifics, but it is best to just leave what I just said alone. My views as a property owner are just as subjective as any one else that owns property and should simply be respected.
Yet other folks desire these alternative energy sources be used because they deem them to be friendly to the environment, or as a means to reduce global warming (it is snowing today BTW Mr. Gore), or just to feel good about whatever it is that an alternative energy source can make a person feel good. Others are fed up with utility rate hikes (completely understand) and, like the current president, feel compelled to fix the air temperature in their home to whatever temperature that makes them feel happy and without guilt that they are killing the planet. Perhaps a wind turbine and/or some solar powered system will allow it to happen and they are willing to take some risks to improve their wants/needs.
The last group that has an interest in alternative energy sources is the providers of products that offer such things. Folks that participate in the free enterprise system that helped make this country so great.
Now for this agenda item, the city has included materials in the work book that I have read and reviewed. The materials included information from other municipalities, counties, and states that have drafted ordinances that deal with small wind energy systems. Some interesting ideas and perhaps some possible solutions may come out of the session tomorrow night.
I am going to discuss in this blog post a possible solution for the city to consider. I will do my best to make it simple, but I don't do simple as well I would like.
Let's go to the well debated yet seemingly confusing issue of setbacks. As mentioned earlier, the main impetus of such an ordinance from the city should be public safety. What we are talking about is what if the tower somehow fell over??
It would suck to be hanging out in your living room watching TV one moment and then in the next find a wind turbine crashing down through your roof. I get that, it is a legitimate concern.
Likewise, if you kept your prize pure bred canine outside, you wouldn't want your neighbors wind turbine crashing down on Sparky's dog house while he slept peacefully. Maybe you don't have a critter, maybe you just don't want anything to disturb your garden or clothes line... fine. As a property owner you have certain rights to quiet enjoyment and security that a wind turbine falling over could compromise.
So simply, make the setbacks equal to the measure of height of the tower multiplied by a factor of 1.5 for any other structure on any other property surrounding the applicants property. So if an applicant wanted a 200 foot tower, it would have to be at least 300 feet away from any other dwelling on any other lot surrounding the applicants property. Now the 200 foot tower example is purposely extreme in this example.
And if surrounding property owners don't want a tower to fall on their prize garden, then perhaps make the setback equal to the measure of height of the tower multiplied by a factor of 1.1 or some other agreed to factor.
I know, I know... adopting this ordinance would eliminate a clear majority of property owners from obtaining a small wind energy system that may want one within the tiny confines of the city limits . We must keep in mind though that the city must do all it can in terms of safety. So if a property owner knew that he/she has enough space on the property according to the ordinance, they just go right on about getting the product or service they desire. No favoritism, no exceptions, no conditional use permits.
So you don't have enough land space on your property for the required radius conditions of the ordinance... are you out of luck?? Not necessarily.
As you know, I'm a big proponent of private property rights and it is from this perspective that I draw conclusions for many of my opinions. So I ask this question... if I wanted a small wind energy system for my property (all of 8,800 square feet) but a 45 foot tower would potentially collapse on either my property, my neighbor to the east, or my neighbor to the north east, or on a public street to the east... who can possibly be affected by the potential collapse?? The answer of course is all of the above, but no one else.
Now if I wanted to put the tower up in the north east part of my backyard, the street to the east is taken out of the equation. Follow me for a second. Now I approach my two very nice neighbors and tell them of my plans to install a small wind energy system and if they were to agree that it wouldn't be a problem to them for me to place the tower in the location I specified, why would anyone else care??
I'm talking about a waiver policy of course. Something that the local ordinance does not have at this time. The following is an example of part of a waiver policy...
As part of the Special Use Permit or Zoning Permit approval process, property owners may waive the setback requirements of Occupied Buildings on both the Subject Property and/or Adjacent Properties by signing a waiver that sets forth the applicable setback provisions and proposed changes. The written waiver shall notify applicable property owners of the setback required by this ordinance, describe how the proposed wind turbine and/or wind energy facility to not be setback as required by this ordinance. Any such waiver shall be signed by all affected property owners and be recorded in the Currituck County Registrat of Deeds Office. The waiver shall describe teh properties benefited and/or burdened, and advise aqll subsequent purchasers of any burdeneed property that waiver of setback shall run with the land and may forever burden the subject property.
Adding this sort of waiver puts the decision back into the hands of the property owners instead of only the governing body. If the safety concerns are those of other property owners, it is those folks that should address the concerns. It also takes care of potential future property owners with the recording of the waivers on the property deed. Disclose, disclose, disclose.
My property does not adhere to the current zoning ordinance because it is not a half-acre or larger. As a property owner, I believe, that I should have every opportunity to improve my property as I desire as long as it does not affect the property rights of my neighbors. If my neighbors agree to the setback waivers I should be able to proceed.
Of course there is no guarantee that your neighbor would play nice and allow you the opportunity to put up a small wind energy system on your property because your neighbor may have a different perception of what is safe and what isn't in terms of a tall tower in the backyard. There are a couple of current city council members that have already stated at a public meeting that they wouldn't want their neighbors to have such monstrosities near their property... and that is their right as property owners. No one would force them to sign waivers (if the neighbor applicant didn't have enough land space to adhere to the ordinance).
I think a waiver policy is a must in order for the overall ordinance to work properly.
If the city settles on a policy where if a tower was to collapse only on the applicants property only, then permits should be issued for proper installment of a small wind energy system.
If your property does not adhere to the city ordinance but you have neighboring property owners that are possibly affected by the placement of the small wind energy system but are willing to grant you notarized recorded authorization for installation, you should be able to obtain the permit needed to move forward.
It seems as fair and equitable as possible. Protecting property rights must be a focus in our community.
I look forward to tomorrow's meeting, I might even bring some of this up for discussion purpose. Come on down and join that discussion. See ya there!!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Entertainment options tonight in Kingman...
If you haven't heard, the old movie theater is open once again right here in jolly old Kingman. As of this moment I don't know what movie choices are available there but the movie about the dog and the family... well I'll admit I got a little misty towards the end (darn those Old Yeller and Where the Red Fern Grows movies of long ago... and I don't even have a canine companion... I'm getting soft).
Also on tap is the season premiere of that singing show that so many millions of people are drawn to. You know, karaoke used to be fun until this show became popular... now everyone at karaoke shows up and sings their heart out. Almost like a try out for the show. For those like me practically tone deaf and without a singing voice that even includes one octave, it is not worth working up (or drinking up) the courage to belt out my favorite Sinatra tune (It Was a Very Good Year).
Well, if either of those two options don't float your entertainment boat... don't forget that tonight is my premiere as a panel member of the planning and zoning commission. We are talking about probably a couple of hours of raucous diversion from your otherwise scintillating affairs on a Tuesday night. We have nine items on the agenda, that is right, nine. Rezones, conditional use permits, and preliminary subdivision plats... oh my!! And don't forget that it is two for one night when you drag someone along, not only will you get in free but so will the other person... I don't know how much longer they can keep that promotion going, really.
In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius "Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?"
Also on tap is the season premiere of that singing show that so many millions of people are drawn to. You know, karaoke used to be fun until this show became popular... now everyone at karaoke shows up and sings their heart out. Almost like a try out for the show. For those like me practically tone deaf and without a singing voice that even includes one octave, it is not worth working up (or drinking up) the courage to belt out my favorite Sinatra tune (It Was a Very Good Year).
Well, if either of those two options don't float your entertainment boat... don't forget that tonight is my premiere as a panel member of the planning and zoning commission. We are talking about probably a couple of hours of raucous diversion from your otherwise scintillating affairs on a Tuesday night. We have nine items on the agenda, that is right, nine. Rezones, conditional use permits, and preliminary subdivision plats... oh my!! And don't forget that it is two for one night when you drag someone along, not only will you get in free but so will the other person... I don't know how much longer they can keep that promotion going, really.
In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius "Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?"
Thursday, January 08, 2009
My first P&Z ride-around later today...
The agenda for my first P&Z meeting as a panel member is out on the city website (linked here). Today is the ride-around and the commissioners get an on-property look at the items on the agenda. Learning process for me no doubt.
Perusing the agenda and I see one agenda item dealing with a wind turbine. That is probably as much I can comment on the agenda at this point. The meeting is next Tuesday night, come on by -- should be fun.
Perusing the agenda and I see one agenda item dealing with a wind turbine. That is probably as much I can comment on the agenda at this point. The meeting is next Tuesday night, come on by -- should be fun.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Planning for growth...
Last Friday I attended the 2008 Boards & Commissions Conference in Phoenix. The city of Kingman sent me there for the opportunity to help me get acquainted with my new appointment to the local Planning and Zoning Commission. The conference was put on by the Arizona Department of Commerce and it included four different sessions on various topics.
Of the sessions I attended, one thing stuck out as a prevailing subject... the expectation of growth throughout the state. (Well, I did attend one breakout session that had to do with Open Meeting Law and Conflict of Interest and growth wasn't really the subject there.)
Of course Arizona is a very diverse state and many communities are in various stages of development. Some of the subject matter was focused on transportation improvements via light rail solutions, something I seriously doubt that Kingman is planning on or is even applicable at this time. Some of the principles covered that would apply to Kingman though I felt were the following...
The encouragement of regional, community, and stakeholder collaboration. This one fits nicely with my overall outlook... calling on the community to come together to identify shared values and common vision for what we want the community to be and making the information accessible leads to greater public involvement and transparency. I think I even wrote a letter to editor some time ago on this subject matter. From that link...
The next couple of principles could be combined the way I see it in our location... mixed land uses and the creation of walkable neighborhoods. One of the underlying themes to the overall theme of growth was the reduction of the dependence of automobiles for transportation (reduction, not elimination). I believe that new communities/developments in the city will most likely keep this in mind and lead to new kinds of demand for housing in our area. We will likely see such terms as healthier lifestyles, environmental concerns, and energy conversation get thrown around as Kingman continues to grow and develop. Supporting the implementation of mixed land uses and walkable neighborhoods will be key in this regard, if simple support is not enough then the city may want to consider some sort of incentives.
The above principles lead to the next principle in some manner, the creation of a good range of housing opportunities and choices. Housing needs are diverse, no doubt, and I don't have a feel at this time for how good the current choices are in meeting the demands that people have. At this time, it is mostly about affordability for most, given the current economy. Having a nice range of housing options near employment centers will be key going forward.
The next principle covered was fostering distinctive and attractive communities with a strong sense of place. Community characteristics are one driver of economic development. Communities with a strong sense of place must reflect the character and values of the people who live there. My question... are we achieving this in Kingman??
The last principle from the presentation I attended that I felt applied at this time to current events in Kingman is making development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. I'll just quote from the materials...
To me, the above hits on many tones here in Kingman currently.
Lastly, one other term jumped out at me in the materials I collected... public/private partnerships.
It was an interesting conference and I was glad to be able to attend. I look forward to my appointment and the duties that come with it. I'm sure I have plenty of learning to do along the way.
Thanks again to the many that have called, emailed, or even stopped by to congratulate me.
Of the sessions I attended, one thing stuck out as a prevailing subject... the expectation of growth throughout the state. (Well, I did attend one breakout session that had to do with Open Meeting Law and Conflict of Interest and growth wasn't really the subject there.)
Of course Arizona is a very diverse state and many communities are in various stages of development. Some of the subject matter was focused on transportation improvements via light rail solutions, something I seriously doubt that Kingman is planning on or is even applicable at this time. Some of the principles covered that would apply to Kingman though I felt were the following...
The encouragement of regional, community, and stakeholder collaboration. This one fits nicely with my overall outlook... calling on the community to come together to identify shared values and common vision for what we want the community to be and making the information accessible leads to greater public involvement and transparency. I think I even wrote a letter to editor some time ago on this subject matter. From that link...
On July 16, I spoke to City Council and briefly shared a vision where an inclusive group of community leaders could collaborate together to provide a list of solutions that would make the decision process a bit easier on the elected officials. The intention was to send a strong signal to the community that we all have a golden opportunity to make a real impact on the future of Kingman. By working together, we could create a friendly path to take that would already have the full support of all.
The next couple of principles could be combined the way I see it in our location... mixed land uses and the creation of walkable neighborhoods. One of the underlying themes to the overall theme of growth was the reduction of the dependence of automobiles for transportation (reduction, not elimination). I believe that new communities/developments in the city will most likely keep this in mind and lead to new kinds of demand for housing in our area. We will likely see such terms as healthier lifestyles, environmental concerns, and energy conversation get thrown around as Kingman continues to grow and develop. Supporting the implementation of mixed land uses and walkable neighborhoods will be key in this regard, if simple support is not enough then the city may want to consider some sort of incentives.
The above principles lead to the next principle in some manner, the creation of a good range of housing opportunities and choices. Housing needs are diverse, no doubt, and I don't have a feel at this time for how good the current choices are in meeting the demands that people have. At this time, it is mostly about affordability for most, given the current economy. Having a nice range of housing options near employment centers will be key going forward.
The next principle covered was fostering distinctive and attractive communities with a strong sense of place. Community characteristics are one driver of economic development. Communities with a strong sense of place must reflect the character and values of the people who live there. My question... are we achieving this in Kingman??
The last principle from the presentation I attended that I felt applied at this time to current events in Kingman is making development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. I'll just quote from the materials...
Development tends to follow the path of least resistance, so the development that is the most desirable should be the easiest to do. There should be as few barriers as possible to restoring historic buildings and creating infill development. Design and construction standards, review and approval processes and finance and fee strategies should be clear for all types of development. Uncertainty creates misunderstandings, aggravates disagreements, costs developers money and ultimately serves no one in the community.
To me, the above hits on many tones here in Kingman currently.
Lastly, one other term jumped out at me in the materials I collected... public/private partnerships.
It was an interesting conference and I was glad to be able to attend. I look forward to my appointment and the duties that come with it. I'm sure I have plenty of learning to do along the way.
Thanks again to the many that have called, emailed, or even stopped by to congratulate me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)