Forcing Turbines on Landowners is Wrong

The following letter is submitted by Mary Barnes, a longtime Ellis County resident:

I have been reading The Hays Daily News Reader Forum and news articles regarding the conditional-use permit for an industrial wind plant submitted by CPV with great interest. You see, I live in the area slated for the conditional-use permit.

The comments regarding our need to lessen our dependency for fossil fuel are all true. But, what we absolutely need to recognize are the problems associated with the location of the proposed wind farm. After all, this is what the conditional-use permit is all about.

It is not whether we all agree on whether renewable energy is a good or bad thing, or whether or not any particular landowner will benefit financially. It doesn't matter how tall or short the towers will be, and it really doesn't matter what he said or she said or didn't say.

The one and only question that should be asked is if an industrial wind turbine project is properly suited to the area in which it is being proposed, especially when so many of the adjacent home and landowners are opposed to the towers being placed in such close proximity to their homes.

When zoning was adopted by Ellis County, the promise of zoning was that the people of Ellis County would be protected from intrusive and unacceptable uses of the property that surrounds their property.

Vernon Berens, Dennis Pfannenstiel and Perry Henman have only one question to answer when they vote on this conditional-use permit. Is the location appropriate for this massive project? Just more than 43 percent of the landowners have signed a formal protest petition stating that they do not want to live in an industrial park.

The actual percentage of landowners against this project is closer to 67 percent. Some of the formal protest signatures were thrown out. Those signatures were thrown out due to land that was in estate probate, or the legal owner of the property didn't write "trustee" behind their name. These are the landowners that live within 1,000 feet of where these intrusive machines are proposed to be built.

I use the word intrusive because there is no other way to describe how these 67 percent feel about being forced by others to live under conditions they had not chosen for themselves.

Conditions from which the county itself vowed to protect.

These are the questions that the county commissioners should consider in deciding this issue:

• Should the 100 plus adjoining neighbors of the project be subjected to noise when country living is so peaceful and quiet?
• Should the 100 plus adjoining neighbors have their view obstructed that they have come to enjoy and expect with living in the country?
• Should the 100 plus adjoining neighbors have the wildlife they have come to enjoy watching begin to vanish?
• Should the 100 plus adjoining neighbors need to worry about health concerns of their families and themselves and feel like guinea pigs in an experiment of let's wait and see if there really is any adverse health side effects of these turbines?
• Should these 100 plus adjoining neighbors worry that if they try to sell their homes will they have to take a significant and dramatic financial loss?
• Will that one reason (whatever that reason may be) those 100 plus adjoining neighbors had for making their home in the country be taken away from them?
• Are we taking away any further development of the city of Hays with this controversial undertaking?

In my opinion, this area is too populated for this type of venture; too many lives will be forever changed and that change will be for the worse. There are other counties in this state that welcome this type of industrialism with open arms. This county and the people immediately adjacent to the project area do not welcome this project.

A yes vote by the county commissioners will be a violation of the zoning rules and regulations which were adopted by the commissioners.

A yes vote will force these landowners to live with an intrusion into their everyday lives which will be unacceptable and a destruction of the lives they have built.

I am praying that just one of these three gentlemen will have the courage to take a stand on what is their duty to protect the people of Ellis County and vote no on the conditional-use permit.

Forcing turbines on landowners is wrong.

Mary Barnes
615 Munjor Road
Hays, Kansas

Location Matters & Other Ways to Save Energy

This letter was submitted by Mary Barnes, resident of Ellis County, Kansas

Location, location, location.

This phrase is frequently used among Realtors and business owners. When a real estate agent is attempting to sell a parcel of land or home, the prospective buyer is enticed with a prime location, whether it is next to the children's school, place of employment, a beautiful park or the hustle and bustle of a shopping district. When a business owner wants to move their business into a new building, again it is all about location and whether or not it will draw customers to make the most profit.

But when those of us who may be forced to live among the turbines are protesting the conditional-use permit, we are told we shouldn't worry about the location.

Location seems to be of critical importance to CPV/Iberdrola. These industrial wind developers are locating their efforts to the U.S. because Europe does not want them any more. Adverse impacts to our landscape and health can no longer be denied.

Yes, location is of equal importance to many homeowners. We are called NIMBYs because we don't like the location.

No, I personally don't want them in my backyard, frontyard or anywhere else in Ellis County.

As far as the $600,000 per year payment in lieu of taxes goes, we were all doing fine before and we will go on being fine after this project is blown out of Ellis County. Ellis County is a nourishing county that is a great "little county" with quality and heart.

We don't need CPV/Iberdrola in our community to destroy what we have come to treasure.

Simple steps are truly green.

If we are concerned about dependency on fossil fuel, greenhouse effect and general well-being of our natural resources, I ask you HDN reader: What are you personally doing to help these energy issues? There are many things we as concerned citizens of the earth can do if we are willing to do them to be earth friendly. For instance:

* Use high-efficiency energy light bulbs.

* Turn your thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter.

* Ride bikes whenever possible or walk.

* Barbecue or use a crock pot or microwave instead of using the stove or oven.

* Use cold water to wash your clothing; cold-water detergents work effectively.

* The next time you buy a vehicle, make sure it gets the best gas mileage you can afford; don't buy just because you like the looks.

* Turn lights and TVs off when you are not using them.

* Hang clothes on a clothesline instead of using the dryer.

* Use fans and ceiling fans instead of turning on the AC at the first sign of heat.

* Turn heat down 5 to 10 degrees at night during the winters when you are not home or sleeping. Use thermal blankets to keep yourself warm.

* Recycle. Kansas is the worst state in the U.S. for its contribution to recycling. Many products that are made from non-recycled items use much more CO2 to manufacture than the same products made with recycled items.

* Stay at home or in Kansas to vacation, instead of driving or flying across the U.S. or to another country.

* Carpool to work whenever you can; children can take turns carpooling with neighboring friends.

Maybe you can do 10 or even more of the suggestions. Perhaps you have other ways to save energy. These are not threatening to our well-being, physically, mentally nor monetarily. Get everyone in your family involved in energy conservation.

Let's all pitch in to make a difference. We can save more energy than the 140 plus turbines could ever produce. We all must do what we can to quench our thirst of fossil fuel and not depend on a select few to carry the burden. If we would all be a little more saving of our energy, in the long run we would not be tearing apart our community and friendships.

Mary Barnes
615 Munjor Road
Hays, Kansas

Time to stand up against the almighty dollar

The following letter was written by Mary Barnes of Hays, Kansas, June 2007

The wind farm issue has left me feeling, well, numb.

My husband and I have lived southwest of Hays for nearly 26 years. We have raised our four children in the country believing that this was the best atmosphere in which to nourish young children.

On summer evenings we sit on the swing and listen to the owls hooting, crickets chirping and the frogs croaking. No one needs to say a word; we are just letting each other enjoy the peacefulness of the night air. Every once in a while you can hear deer or the horses walking around behind our yard or maybe the dog barking at the coyotes that are howling in the distance. On blustery winter days, we look at the wonderful blanket of snow that seems to go on forever.

In the mornings as we drive the kids to school, I tell my kids to look at the wonderful artwork that the Good Lord has given to us with His majestic sunrises and sunsets as we are heading back home. We don’t hear cars drive by, there are no street lamps to light up the blackness of the night, and there is nobody nearby having a party and playing their music too loud disturbing the absolute quietness. This is the life that we chose when we decided to live in the country all those years ago. It is simply beautiful, peaceful and tranquil.

We are now being literally forced to give all of this up for the almighty dollar? The proposed area to place the industrial wind complex will certainly take all that we have known to love about our country living and throw it into the wind where it will be gone forever.

The people who are against the complex are not against green energy.

We simply are saying that there needs to be a better site - a site that will not take away what we cherish or cause so much anger and friction between what were once good friends, neighbors and even our own families.

If the zoning board and county commissioners pass this conditional use permit, it will open the door for Iberdrola of Spain to put these turbines up anywhere in the county. This zoning is county zoning, not just the zoning southwest of Hays.

Fellow Ellis County residents, please beware. If this permit is allowed to pass, there will no place in Ellis County that will be safe from these turbines. The “wind” is the limit.

We are all people of the land; whether all we have is chicken to pet or a pony to brush (or dreams of owning one). Is this really what we want for our beautiful Ellis County?

The good people of Beaumont, Spearville and Montezuma welcome these industrial wind complexes, I for one, say let them have them. The grids are already in place. I am sure that these towns would love to have additional 47 turbines each.

The wind still is blowing there last time I checked. Why then are the “wind people” so adamant about the turbines coming to Ellis County?

Why are they willing to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, family against family? Is it all in the name of being earth-friendly and wanting to lessen our dependency on fossil fuel? Or is it the almighty dollar rearing its ugly head speaking loudly and clearly? Sadly to say, I believe it is the latter.

Let the Ellis County community stand together and be able to say that we fought big corporate business and won.

Submitted by Ellis County Resident:
Mary Barnes
615 Munjor Road
Hays, Kansas

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to prevent this wind farm from being constructed next to Hays, Kansas, you can follow this link and leave your name, real address, and a single comment about your support of this petition. Click here now!