Posted on 11/06/2011 7:02:06 PM PST by PENANCE
CAMDENTON, Mo. (AP) -- Nearly every year, Patsy Riley has gotten unsolicited offers for her house on Missouri's Lake of the Ozarks with its spectacular views of tree-lined bluffs and its ample shoreline, but she never wanted to leave. Now, she and hundreds of her neighbors wonder what will become of their homes after a federal agency declared that many structures built close to the lake may have to go. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, citing restrictions on private developments around dams, says thousands of residences, decks, patios and boathouses appear to encroach on land belonging to the hydroelectric project in violation of federal regulations. The announcement has triggered panic in the area's lakefront communities and led to a growing battle among regulators, a utility company, land attorneys and the state's congressional delegation. Officials say they are searching for a way to settle the issue without mass evictions. ... The dispute pits the government's rules for hydroelectric projects against the potential vagaries of land records and private transactions that go back more than 80 years. Riley and other property owners say they have legal deeds to their land that permitted construction. The agency says it has regulations protecting the lake's recreation, scenery and environment against development. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Of the people, by the people, for the people...or something.
Zero can kiss MO goodbye.
Just don’t let them have federally-backed flood insurance.
We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.
They don’t need it. There’s a high water level that the dam’s owner has to observe. If not water, overtopping the dam can destroy it.
If you’re downstream of the dam and close to the 100 year base flood elevation, flood insurance is very worth considering.
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.
Unless Ameren, or the Fed Gov, can show title to this land they better watch their step.
These folks most likely have some hill billy relatives and they can be really obstinate about things.
I know, I am one and am related to others.
These kinds of things have been going on for years in California — 1/2 inch, non-native, non-commercial smelt taking precedence over human life (why water was severely curtailed to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley), sand flies stopping development in its tracks, snail darters and weeds declared “endangered species” and given untold rights.
Welcome to our world.
Fortunately, we have the Pacific Legal Foundation to take on some of these insane lefties and their agendas and fight for the little guy against the likes of Geriatric Brown and the draconian Coastal Commission.
Good luck Missouri!! Yer gonna need it!!
Here’s the website for the PLF, maybe you can muster up something similar in MO before the lefties start stomping you into the ground
I would think that under a claim of adverse possession alone, the FEDS loose
I know a guy that had to move his entire camp 50 ft back farther from the lake it was on in the Adirondacks. After spending tons of money fighting them, the Adirondack Park Agency forced him to do this. He had built the camp by hand with the help of a lot of friends, proper permits, after 10 years they show up and said move it or we tear it down. Their excuse was that because it was so secluded, they didn’t realize the “problem” for 10 years.
Localism—we need to get the counties to reject state and federal laws that go beyond that which is in the Constitution. Go by the actual document—not all the stupid unconstitutional jurisprudence over the last 90 years-— regulations and rules which go against the Constitution——KICK them OUT! Get your commissioners and City people behind you.... Do it at the local level!
I heard they did this in Maine—wrote up their own ordinances or something— they wanted raw milk and wanted no dictates from WA about any of their food. They should do it on light bulbs too.
It can be done. WE are the government. Up until the Marxists took over, we had local control of most things....TIME to take back local control. No government interference in education either—all done at the local level==and kick out all the Marxist textbooks that pervert the worldview of the children.
Based on the article, it sounds like the company that originally built the dam did not observe the shoreline plan requirements in the Federal permit. They incorrectly sold off lakefront property that the law required be kept undeveloped. It should be the power company that has to repurchase the land at market value and restore it to meet the requirements. There is no way the current landowners should be left holding the bag without compensation.
I like your common sense answer. The energy users in Missouri will foot the bill though. It will simply be a cost of doing business for AmerenUE.
On the other hand, I’d rather see the answer to the question “Who or what is harmed by not enforcing this regulation? What is the purpose of the regulation?”
However, something else may be more helpful given our current president and his environmental advocates in power. This is one of the wealthiest areas in rural Missouri. Imagine trying something like this in the Hamptons to the vacation homes of the East Coast rich and powerful, and you've got an idea what is happening here.
The opposition to this is bipartisan, and there is some **MAJOR** money and big-time Democratic Party connections behind some of the people who are objecting.
I have trouble seeing federal regulators getting away with this against a united front of angry wealthy liberals who want to protect their vacation homes and conservative Missourians who actually live there and owned their property long before it became an upscale lakefront area.
Actually, I think it's a poor article which leaves out a lot of crucial information. The homeowners will most likely be compensated; but the article leaves the definite impression that the land will be "seized" without any compensation.
My question is whether there was such a "shoreline plan" back in the 1930's when the dam was built. I tend to think there wasn't.
Also there are lots of people who has houses there that are very rich from St Louis and such that just visit during summer.
That is a good point. What if the people are compensated for whatever market value was before the issue came up, and then a future FERC panel ‘revisits’ the necessity of keeping the shoreline undeveloped ? You can be sure some resort will pick up the property once it is back to a single owner to deal with.
The dam operator might make a fortune. If FERC doesn’t change its ruling and insists the land be cleared, the property owners should sue for rights to the difference in value if the property is allowed to be sold within 20 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.