Saint Jo Wind Meeting

There are 10 comments on the Jun 26, 2006, KFDX-TV Wichita Falls story titled Saint Jo Wind Meeting. In it, KFDX-TV Wichita Falls reports that:

If you live in the Saint Jo area and have an opinion on wind turbines in your town, tonight is your chance to sound off.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KFDX-TV Wichita Falls.

Large landowner

Fairfax, VA

#1 Jul 16, 2006
I like the angelic wing turbines.
Mary Ray - Wise County

United States

#2 Sep 19, 2006
A Wise Electric Coop employee told me that St Jo is blessed with ideal conditions to host a windmill farm. People in Collin County are paying $6000 a piece for a windmill generat, in hopes of lowering their electric bill.

You have the opportunity dumped in your laps, for free! Go for the windmill farm!

September 18, 2006
Rupert

United States

#3 Sep 23, 2006
our ancestors dug a hole in the ground to find water which was pulled up with a rope and bucket,then the wind mill came into play. What a beautiful site.Then in the 40's the dc wind charger came about, usually on the top of the house or tower. what a wonderful site. Then came along the TV and up vame largge towers in every yard for antennas.What a wonderful site. Then came the cell phone wit thousands of towers up and down i-35 and almost any where you go.Another wonder full site. THEN CAME THE WIND MILLS FOR ELECTRICTY AND SOME PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE UGLY. Why should they be ugly?

If you want to see something ugly, just drive around cooke county and count all the unused buildings falling down, old water towers on Moss lake road, old chimmenys from burnt down homes, the new electrical metal poles the are putting up in cooke county now. NOW THOSE THINGS AND MANY OTHER SITES IN COOKE COUNTY ARE UGLY

RUPERT
Roxy

Garland, TX

#4 Sep 30, 2006
Amen! Rupert
doug

Cedar Hill, TX

#5 Oct 2, 2006
part 1
The opposition fighting the wind farm is treating the project as though it were a public-works project, which it is not. In fact it is a business deal between a company and a private property owner’s surface estate. The project is more like an oil & gas exploration project. Instead of the pumping units being 14 feet tall they are 400 feet tall.

The opponents are threatening to sue landowners who lease for lost property values and private nuisance if wind turbines are installed on the landowners’ properties.

The problem with such a suit is that the law deals in principles and makes no distinction between cell towers, wind turbines, radio towers, pumping units, barns, shops, etc.
doug

Cedar Hill, TX

#6 Oct 2, 2006
part 2
As the saying goes,“You can sue for anything but what are you odds of winning?” Could the opposition win such a suit? I don’t think so. Here’s why, I’ll quote the relevant parts: http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1092.pdf
Basically, does a landowner have the unrestricted right to a particular view either to or from the property, the unrestricted right to receive sunlight on the property or the unrestricted right to receive a breeze across the property? Most case law examining the issue involves spite fences and billboards. Spite fences are solid structures built purely to spite a neighbor and not necessarily to benefit the owner. One general rule, however, recited repeatedly by the Texas courts, is useful. An owner of real estate may, in the absence of building restrictions or other regulations, erect a building, wall, fence or other structure on the property, even if it obstructs a neighbor’s vision, light or air and even if it depreciates the neighbor’s land. Motives for erecting the structures are irrelevant. However, owners can not use their property in a way that constitutes a nuisance…“It is a rule of long standing that in the absence of nuisance, or negligence, or physical harm there is ordinarily no liability for diminution in adjoining land values resulting from the lawful use of one’s own land.” Exactly what is a nuisance, and how is it applied to these cases? A nuisance is a condition brought about by a property use so unusual that it causes injury or inconvenience to another’s use of property. Sometimes it is defined as a condition that substantially interferes with another’s use and enjoyment of land…“Nothing, as has been said, can be more certain than that every one has a right to use his own as he pleases, provided he does not thereby injure others; and it is inconceivable that, upon any principle, one can acquire a right or interest in that which is another’s merely by the manner in which he uses his own.” End quote.
doug

Cedar Hill, TX

#7 Oct 2, 2006
part 3
In other words, since there are no building restrictions where these turbines will be built, the landowner can build, or have built, whatever structure he/she wants so long as it doesn’t inconvenience others in the use of their land. A property owner could build a privacy fence up to but < 200 feet tall if he wanted and since it’s under FAA regulation height it wouldn’t even require aviation lights.

Basically, the opponents are claiming they have an unrestricted right to the scenic view on someone else’s property, to the scenery on and owned by another property owner. It’s as if the opposition is saying they own a scenery rights to someone else’s private property.

One of the opponents (North Texas Wind Resistance) has hired the same attorney who filed this case in Abilene http://www.windaction.org/...

Scroll down to page 9 to read the Background of Facts. The only legitimate part of this suit is the claim of foundation damage to a house from dynamite blasting. This lawyer couldn’t win this suit if the plaintiffs were the surface estate owners, the defendants the mineral estate owners, and the actually land use was on the plaintiffs own properties.
http://www.tlma.org/SurfaceOwnerInfo.pdf#sear...

If he were to win it, though, it’d overturn most of Texas precedence laws that applies to any number of structures. Such as, radio and cell towers, oilfields...

From a news report about the case, it looks like the judge through out the attempted injunction. Now this same lawyer has filed a similar injunction here in Cooke County.
www.reporter-news.com/abil/nw_local/article/0...
doug

Cedar Hill, TX

#8 Oct 2, 2006
As the saying goes,“You can sue for anything but what are you odds of winning?” Could the opposition win such a suit? I don’t think so. Here’s why, I’ll quote the relevant parts: http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1092.pdf
Basically, does a landowner have the unrestricted right to a particular view either to or from the property, the unrestricted right to receive sunlight on the property or the unrestricted right to receive a breeze across the property? Most case law examining the issue involves spite fences and billboards. Spite fences are solid structures built purely to spite a neighbor and not necessarily to benefit the owner. One general rule, however, recited repeatedly by the Texas courts, is useful. An owner of real estate may, in the absence of building restrictions or other regulations, erect a building, wall, fence or other structure on the property, even if it obstructs a neighbor’s vision, light or air and even if it depreciates the neighbor’s land. Motives for erecting the structures are irrelevant. However, owners can not use their property in a way that constitutes a nuisance…“It is a rule of long standing that in the absence of nuisance, or negligence, or physical harm there is ordinarily no liability for diminution in adjoining land values resulting from the lawful use of one’s own land.” Exactly what is a nuisance, and how is it applied to these cases? A nuisance is a condition brought about by a property use so unusual that it causes injury or inconvenience to another’s use of property. Sometimes it is defined as a condition that substantially interferes with another’s use and enjoyment of land…“Nothing, as has been said, can be more certain than that every one has a right to use his own as he pleases, provided he does not thereby injure others; and it is inconceivable that, upon any principle, one can acquire a right or interest in that which is another’s merely by the manner in which he uses his own.” End quote.
In other words, since there are no building restrictions where these turbines will be built, the landowner can build, or have built, whatever structure he/she wants so long as it doesn’t inconvenience others in the use of their land. A property owner could build a privacy fence up to but < 200 feet tall if he wanted and since it’s under FAA regulation height it wouldn’t even require aviation lights.
Basically, the opponents are claiming they have an unrestricted right to the scenic view on someone else’s property, to the scenery on and owned by another property owner. It’s as if the opposition is saying they own a scenery rights to someone else’s private property.
One of the opponents (North Texas Wind Resistance) has hired the same attorney who filed this case in Abilene http://www.windaction.org/...
Scroll down to page 9 to read the Background of Facts. The only legitimate part of this suit is the claim of foundation damage to a house from dynamite blasting. This lawyer couldn’t win this suit if the plaintiffs were the surface estate owners, the defendants the mineral estate owners, and the actually land use was on the plaintiffs own properties.
http://www.tlma.org/SurfaceOwnerInfo.pdf#sear...
If he were to win it, though, it’d overturn most of Texas precedence laws that applies to any number of structures. Such as, radio and cell towers, oilfields...
From a news report about the case, it looks like the judge through out the attempted injunction. Now this same lawyer has filed a similar injunction here in Cooke County.
www.reporter-news.com/abil/nw_local/article/0...
Roxy

Duncanville, TX

#9 Oct 2, 2006
I live here and have no bad thoughts.
I have to listen to those noisy oil well pumps.
roxy
doug

Venus, TX

#10 Oct 3, 2006
I think there's too many city people moving here who have a suburban entitlement frame of thinking.

They think they can zone and controll their neighbors' non-zoned private property.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Muenster Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Apr 22 Fart 798
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Apr 18 Fart Smoke 633
News Gainesville man dies in house fire (Apr '09) Apr 9 1000 percent sure 514
Looking for Dr. Donald Simmons Apr 1 Former Patient 2
News Victim's family reacts to sentence in Cooke Co.... Mar '15 Senseless 3
Who Murdered Barry Pruitt ? (Mar '10) Mar '15 Btw 14
Arresting a 76 YO man Mar '15 letstellitlikeitis 7
More from around the web

Muenster People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]