I must say that I am late to the planning and zoning fight here in Camden County.  I am trying to learn though, and for those of you interested in understanding what is going on I will keep you posted on my findings as I do my own research into an understanding as to why so many people I have such a deep regard for are up at arms over what is happening in our own backyards. 

 

I know that many lake front owners who are not voters will be interested in the happenings of the lake as it pertains to them.  Agree or disagree with my deductions, everyone NEEDS to know what is going on here at our beautiful Lake of the Ozarks.

 After countless hours of reading, and attending several meetings I am starting to understand EXACTLY why our neighbors and friends are so upset.  I am ashamed that I did not get involved sooner in trying to educate myself.  So, if you would like to learn as I learn…then, read on.  We shall be alarmed together at my findings. 

 

AND PLEASE REMEMBER:  Take my word for NOTHING!  Use my research to conduct your own.  Find truth for yourself, never take anything at face value any more.  And, when you hear claims from officials that there is lots of “misinformation” spreading, then sound all warning bells.  That is a dead giveaway that you are on the right track.  Knowledge is power.  An informed electorate is powerful.  Choose to know truth.

 My words are in red below.

 History:  Planning and Zoning was voted into existence in 1997 in Camden County.  The margin of victory was very small.  Somewhere around 40 votes decided this ballot initiative in our county as I understand it.  Many say that the vote was not legal because multitudes of people voted on this issue who were not “qualified” to vote since they would not fall within the Planning and Zoning district, and therefore would not be subject to the regulations that would later be set forth. 

 None-the-less, albeit the validity still in question, P & Z was voted in favor of, and a few years later a “Unified Land Use Code” was adopted.  THIS PARTICULAR PLAN WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE VOTERS!  This plan was plucked from Franklin County, Missouri and overlaid here.  Needless to say it has not been the popular choice for many since we are such a diverse and unique area.  Many believe that we need a code that addresses our very diversity and is custom fit for us.  That is not what the Unified Land Use Code currently in place does.  I will illustrate the concerns as I research this fully.

 Taken from this site:

http://www.camdenmo.org/planning_zoning/ulc/Articles%20100-1400/Article%20100.pdf

 (camdenmo.org is Camden County's official website)

CAMDEN COUNTY UNIFIED LAND-USE CODE

ARTICLE 100: GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 102 - PURPOSE AND NECESSITY :

The purpose of this Code is to promote and protect public health, safety, morals, and/or general welfare, through the regulation of the use of land and the location, use, size, height, and shape of buildings and structures erected thereon, having due regard to:

Many thought Planning and Zoning was established to keep developers to a higher standard and quality of construction.  That is a misconception.  According to our Land Use Code, the “PURPOSE AND NECESSITY for the code is for the local government to decide for you  how to promote “morals”….really?  Who decides what my morals should look like?  The county.  MORALS?  Through regulation and penalty of the use of my land someone gets to decide what my morals should be?  That is exactly what it says.  And to “promote the public health, safety, MORALS, and general welfare through regulation of the use of land….I did NOT make this up.  This is not “misinformation”.  This is exactly what the code reads. And if you think safety can be an ambiguous term, it is.  And what EXACTLY does “general welfare” imply?   

**Encouraging the most appropriate use of land. According to whom?  Who gets to decide what the “most appropriate use of your land is?  NOT YOU.  That is for sure.

**Preventing the overcrowding of land. What and who constitutes “overcrowding”? Are two human beings too much on 25 acres if there is an over abundance of wildlife there?  Well, you and I may not think so, but we don't think like the enviornomental types who forget that this land is our habitat also.  Somehow that always conveniently is forgotten.  Humans should always be part of the consideration, but largely we are the last component considered in the equation.  I would agree that when it comes to the density of condos on the lake front, there is a concern there.   But, to me, this leaves the door WIDE open for someone to interpret what “overcrowding” means for us in this rural setting. Concerning because this is very ambiguous.

**Conserving the value of land and structures.  So, through regulation of your land someone else (the county) will “conserve the value of land and structures” for you.  Apparently through regulation  the county can decide how to “conserve" the value of your land.  That does not sound like the free market to me.  They will protect your value so you don’t have to since you may not be capable. Through the regulations in the code the P and Z will make sure to protect you from yourself.

  **Lessening the congestion of traffic on the roads.  Lessening the congestion of traffic on the roads sounds great at face value.  I hate traffic, thus the reason I choose to live here.  However, this great intention could become dangerous if done through the regulation of YOUR land to the point of your great displeasure at some point in the future.  So, if you have a piece of land that you have held for investment for some time that you have always planned to sell or develop as part of your retirement; and the county decides that your development may cause too much traffic while their goal is to lessen traffic on the roads, you may be out of luck.   I bet the business owners on old highway 54 (what is now Osage Beach Parkway) wish for a little "congestion" on the roads.  Too many businesses to count have closed their doors due to the lack of  "congestion of traffic" there.  Not saying that our P and Z, or our Master Plan had anything to do with this problem.  However, sometimes a little "congestion of traffic" can provide great benefits to businesses who depend on that exposure to help support our local tax base, and their survival.  It should concern us all that unnamed and faceless entities that have not been elected to protect and serve you are  regulating land use in order to promote the morals and welfare of all.  You ask, but whose morals and whose welfare?  GREAT QUESTION. 

**Avoiding the congestion of population. WHAT?  Congestion of the population?  At the Lake of the Ozarks?  In the middle of Missouri?  What constitutes congestion?  GREAT QUESTION.  Does "congestion" here look the same as "congestion" in St. Louis?  GREAT QUESTION.

**Providing for adequate light and air.  SERIOUSLY?  Are you dying to know what that means?  If we were in New York City, then this might make more sense, but what in the world could this possibly mean to us here?  Provide for adequate light and air?  Does not God do that?  Is there a plan to herd us all into wooden boxes for the better part of the day?  And it has to be mandated in order to promote the safety and welfare of the population for them to provide adequate light and air.  I know…sounds like sci-fi stuff to me, too.  But when you read something so ridiculous in our land use code, your mind runs wild.  But, what does it mean to us?  GREAT QUESTION.  It means that we may have adopted a Unified Land Use Code for our area that was meant for a more urban setting that does not fit us.  That is the best explanation to me.  But that is just me.

**Securing safety from fire, flood, and other dangers.  Thank you very much.  Who does not want to keep their family safe from all of these things.  I know I sure do.  But when the flip side to protecting me from these things and “other dangers” mean infringing upon my personal freedom and my private property by regulating me into oblivion, then this quickly becomes a VERY BAD IDEA.  Is the county trying to protect me from myself?  Am I or you that “other danger”.  Once again, too ambiguous for my liking.

**Facilitating adequate provision of infrastructure and public facilities.  Adequate provision…..who decides?  What does that look like to us in a more rural area? GREAT QUESTION.

**Giving reasonable consideration to the existing character and peculiar suitability for certain uses in particular districts.  Give “REASONABLE CONSIDERATION”….by whose standards?  Who decides what is reasonable?  GREAT QUESTION.

**Giving effect to the policies and proposals of the Master Plan as approved by the Planning Commission.

You may have gotten “truth” from the county in some ways, but just know there is MUCH more to the story.  The whole truth looks a lot different than a half truth.  Understand that the ambiguity of the “CODE” is very unsettling.  The enforcement of not following the code is jail time for up to a year, and $500 per day.  AND every day your offense is not resolved, each new day constitutes a new offense.  Therefore, it appears you could be incarcerated for much more than a year.   As well, you can have your property liened for not following the ambiguous codes, and at the end of the year if you cannot pay your mounting fines the county can auction your house on the court house steps. 

An unelected P and Z board, and an unelected P and Z administrator have the authority through the code to come after you at their discretion, based on how they interpret the very ambiguous code.  Right now the fight and the awaited vote is as to how much weight they will grant the enforcement arm of the code.  Below is how the administrator of the P and Z, Don Hathaway, feels about his ability to “guarantee collection of fines”.  If he has his way, it will cost you your property if the fines become too steep to pay.  If you cannot pay the fines, you will lose your property on the court house steps according to Mr. Hathaway.

http://lakeexpo.com/news/lake_news/article_e5393840-49bd-11e2-9040-001a4bcf887a.html

“Hathaway, who drafted the proposed changes after reviewing existing statutes, court cases, information provided by attorneys and codes adopted by other cities and counties, said the commission will also be considering additional steps to guarantee collection of those fines.


“The Planning Commission will be looking at adding a provision that would allow the county to assess costs to the tax bill, the same way we handle storm water management,” he said. “That means the fees would have to be paid at the end of the year or the business would be in default. What happens when people default on their taxes? Their properties can be sold on the courthouse steps.”

Where is the due process guaranteed to us by our Constitution?  Do not sit idle and allow for this to happen in our county. Show up and say NO WAY. Make your voices heard.  Do not allow our county become like Washington DC, where unelected entities like the EPA and FERC govern our lives.  Do not allow for that to happen at the county level.  DEMAND DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. 

“Man is not free unless government is limited.” -- Ronald Reagan

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” -- Ronald Reagan

This applies to us. 

BE HEARD.  Be educated.  Know the truth. 

 

Show up to the next Planning and Zoning meeting on January 16th at 5:30 pm.  Camden County Courthouse.

 

Stay tuned.  I will continue to read and pass on information on this site as to why the residents of Camden County need to REALLY understand the implications of the Unified Land Use Code.

 

 

 

GREAT SOURCE FOR REAL INFORMATION

We are hearing horror stories every day about the impact of the new SMP on real live people here at the lake.  If you know of one, or have one yourself please a  message on the email address included below on how best to reach you.  We are compiling all of the real issues that are arising out of the newest FERC order and uniting the people who find out that there are issues....but, you just don't know what they are until it comes time to sell your lake home.  It is such a travesty, and so very sad. 

That being said, please read the latest Lake of the Ozarks Business Journal.  You will find it here:

http://lakebusjournal.com/articles.html

Bar none, this is the best source of accurate information on the issue that you will find anywhere.  Kudos to the Lake Business Journal for such careful research and in depth reporting on this very important subject!

The fight is far from over, and there are carefully laid plans and the organization of many groups all over the lake calculating their next steps.  Take heart, just because you have not heard anything does not mean there is nothing happening. 

Do not face this issue alone, there is an army of people out there right now that are standing shoulder to shoulder to fight this.  Join us here:     noferc@gmail.com  give us your email address and we will include you on meeting times and places if you are interested.  Groups are much more powerful than singular people.  They are taking place almost every weekend.  Please pass this information on if you know of someone who might be interested.  Keep fighting the good fight.

MY ADVICE

I am overwhelmed with calls from very distraught lake front property owners at this point.  My best advice for everyone involved...SEEK LEGAL ADVICE NOW.  In lieu of the most recent FERC Order of June 5, 2012 FERC  it is time to bring clarity to the ownership questions here at the LOZ.  Contrary to popular belief the  FERC Order clears up nothing.  If anything it only confuses the issue we have been facing.

Here is the confusion:  Everyone thinks that the FERC is the big bad wolf in this matter at the Lake of Ozarks.  They have most certainly looked that way more often than not.  When an entity out of Washington D.C. can so arrogantly mandate the removal of 4500 structures at the Lake of the Ozarks it is fair to say that the title of "big bad wolf" is undoubtedly with merit. 

However, if you took the time to read the newest FERC order of June 5, 2012 the FERC is quick to point out statements such as these:

"An SMP is only applicable to lands owned or controlled by a licensee, and has no effect on areas in which a licensee has no interest."  Page 3;  http://www.ferc.gov/media/news-releases/2012/2012-2/06-05-12-decision.pdf
Page 6;

Among other things, the Commission explained that: (1) nothing in the SMP, the July 26 order, or in November 10 order has any impact on property rights, so that whatever rights entities have in lands within the boundaries of the Osage Project -- whether conferred by deed, lease, easement, or other conveyance -- have not been and will not be altered by action in these proceedings; (2) nothing in the Commission’s orders affects any previously-issued valid permit authorizing a non-project use of project lands or waters; and (3) if an entity has built a structure on lands on which it has a right to do so, that structure is not an encroachment, and the Commission’s orders do not suggest that it needs to be removed. Further, the Commission has no jurisdiction to rule on property rights, which are matters of state law, and any dispute regarding the rights granted by conveyance documents must be resolved in an appropriate court.

If you get nothing else get this...what we are dealing with now is a matter of property rights.  Do we own what we believe we own?  Do we own what we pay taxes on?  Are our deeds accurate?  Are our easements valid?  This is an incredibly complicated issue that will make your head swim.  It is the belief of a multitude of many far smarter than myself,   that you do have the right to be there.  It is the opinion of many that your deeds are correct, and in order for Ameren to impose the SMP they must "own or control" the rights to those properties. If they (Ameren) do not, the SMP bears no affect.  Period.  Therefore, this is an issue of property rights.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  It is time for you to lawyer up, and as the FERC says on page 6 of their most recent order, "let the courts decide".  ("...the Commission has no jurisdiction to rule on property rights, which are matters of state law, and any dispute regarding the rights granted by conveyance documents must be resolved in an appropriate court. ")

Seek advice from your attorney about how he/she interpret your title insurance policy in conjunction with your deed.  It is time.  Is the SMP applicable in your back yard?  The FERC makes it clear that "An SMP is only applicable to lands owned or controlled by a licensee, and has no effect on areas in which a licensee has no interest." Is that yours?  You better find out.

ALSO:  Do not sign anything.  Do NOT apply for a permit until you talk to your attorney.  If you do you may inadvertently be signing away your right or ability to seek an adverse possession claim in the future.  Be educated.  Spread the word.  Know your rights. 

As I have said before, if Ameren NEEDS your property and the rights you own in order to execute the SMP, then they need to acquire those rights that have been yours for decades.  As I relayed to a letter to many out there a couple of days ago:  Estoppels are going to now be filed against the 1500 homes once ordered torn down.  This is not a good thing.  That means that the scary black line that used to be called the "project boundary line" is still there, but it just has a new name called "Ameren's fee simple ownership line".  It means that they are telling you that THEY (Ameren) own your property and not you.  It means that title companies may not issue survey coverage in most cases on properties that have these estoppels.  That means that lenders probably will not lend without that coverage.  You cannot sell what you do not own. 

Again...this is a property rights issue now.  Seek legal advice.  It is time.  If the courts find the property really is yours, and your easements do grant you rights, AND paying your taxes for decades to grant you the rights you thought you had then it is reasonable to expect that if Ameren desperately needs your property to administer the SMP, then you should be compensated for those rights. 

 Due process is a right guaranteed to every American citizen in the Bill of Rights of our US Constitution. If they take your property rights, they MUST compensate you. If your deed says you own to the middle of your channel, OR you have an easement that overlays Ameren’s fee simple ownership then YOU HAVE RIGHTS that cannot just be stripped from you for the public use.

Amendment V – The Takings Clause

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Tim Sear is an incredibly knowledgeable attorney who has invested years researching this issue, and had the foresight to see the magnitude of this issue years ago.  I have spent many hours talking with him and believe that he is an  individual who understands this issue at the core.  if you do not have an attorney and need one his information is as follows:

Timothy J. Sear Shareholder 6201 College Blvd. Suite 500 Overland Park, KS 66211 tsear@polsinelli.com tel: 913.234.7402 fax: 913.451.6205

Hewas on the radio this morning talking about this issue.  his interview is here if you would like to listen to him:

http://mail.aol.com/36301-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/get-attachment.aspx?uid=215602&folder=Inbox&partId=6&saveAs=2012-06-07_09-00_The_Morning_Magazine_1Edit.mp3

**To further illustrate points made please read this article recently published by Lake of the Ozarks business journal.  it is one of the best newspapers for finding truly accurate reporting on this issue and what the real issues are and will continue to be.  I applaud nancy hogland for doing such an incredible amount of research and spendint the time to understanding this issue and reporting on it with a depth of knowledge second to none.

http://lakebusjournal.com/issues/05012012/pdf/May_2012_BNJ.pdf

 

Your Estoppel Is In The Mail

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/estoppel

Definition of ESTOPPEL:

a legal bar to alleging or denying a fact because of one's own previous actions or words to the contrary.

In other words...Everyone else stop asserting the truth. Ameren is going to decide for all of you property owners what the  truth is and should be, and should have been for decades even though it has been something else and everyone has accepted those truths (deeds) for decades.


Ameren sent out letters to the 1500 people a couple of weeks ago who have “encroaching structures”within the project boundary. But wait, I thought we breathed a sigh of relief that those homes were “okay, and were going to be protected”. Remember when the FERC came out with their November clarification and spelled out the fact that they were going to force Ameren to remove those homes from the project boundary? Well, that part is going to happen for the benefit of the FERC. The project boundary IS getting moved so the FERC no longer looks like the Big Bad Wolf forcing the tear down of thousands of innocent property owners homes….but, not so fast on your sigh of relief.

We must remember that over, and over, and over again we heard and read these words from Ameren:

“The proposed boundary change does not change current property ownership.”

See, a lot of unsuspecting property owners thought that this meant THEIR property ownership, thus what they understood to be their rights. WRONG. This has meant what Ameren perceives as their property rights all along.

Now that Ameren cannot claim that they "have to do this becuase of the FERC and their federal license requirements" ,  Ameren has to make sure that they continue to asssert that the property that you have been paying taxes on for decades is still theirs. They are doing this through the vehicle of an estoppel certificate that is going to be recorded against your property if you are one of the "encroaching structures". This is not a favor from Ameren. Let's make that clear. This is an ugly document that asserts their rights over yours.

 

When on the radio a couple a weeks ago about this issue, there were a some anonymous emailers who were upset because I was "scaring people" about what could happen. Well, here is the truth...if my house were an "encroaching structure" I would and should be very scared by the implications of this document. I would also be very angry because I KNOW the truth and KNOW that I have rights. I would choose not to be bullied. But, that is just me. For all of the rest of you who might want to slip into a state of "normalcy bias" and choose to believe Ameren is doing the right thing....then keep drinking the cool-aid. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

 

The letter sent out to the homeowners, from Ameren, clearly explains this to you below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 5, 2012

Dear :

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is considering Ameren Missouri's proposal to revise and reduce the FERC "project boundary" to address encroaching structures at Lake of the Ozarks. According to our research, your home or other structure may be located on property owned by Ameren Missouri.

Understand: Ameren is going to reduce the project boundary for the benefit of the FERC so your house is not ordered torn down, but they want for you to clearly remember that they assert your home is built on property Ameren still owns.

If the FERC boundary adjustment is approved, your home (or other improvements) would no longer be located within the project boundary and therefore would not be subject to shoreline management or FERC regulatory requirements.

However, what the estoppel certificate that they plan to record with your legal description will show that Ameren still contends that they own the ground that your home is built on.

Assuming that FERC grants our request, Ameren Missouri also intends to file in the Recorder of Deeds Office(s) for Camden, Miller, Benton and Morgan Counties the enclosed Estoppel Certificate which provides an additional measure of assurance and protection to you, clarifying your current and future use and enjoyment of your home. An aerial photograph of the shoreline and the revised project boundary from which you can locate your own residence can be viewed at http://detailmap.tgisites.com/

In particular, the Estoppel Certificate is:

This is Ameren’s explanation to you that you do not own the property that your house sits on (but you still get to pay taxes on it).

· A legally binding commitment by the Company that it will not take steps to remove existing structures located on Ameren Missouri property, provided that such structures are located outside the new project boundary.

· A legally binding commitment by the Company that it will not take steps to remove structures that may be constructed in the future on Ameren Missouri property provided, again, that such structures are located outside the new project boundary.

· Such commitment shall apply to all properties outside the project boundary that were acquired by Ameren Missouri's predecessor companies from the 1930s on including those properties acquired via condemnation.

Ameren Missouri's ownership and easement interests in lakefront property have been a matter of public record since the 1930s. It is regrettable that over time third parties purported to convey title to lakefront property that Ameren Missouri actually owns or created plats and surveys that omitted Ameren Missouri’s property interests. (Yoohoo Ameren, remember your own admission in your boundary line amendment request to the FERC where you say, “ UED reserved an easement for the benefit of its successors and assigns to allow access and construction within the UELP Property or Project boundary” Construction has been allowed in that easement area by your own admission since the beginning for all successors and assigns.

We are not requiring that homeowners revise their deeds to reflect Ameren Missouri's ownership. We believe the FERC order revising the boundary, coupled with the foregoing aspects of the Estoppel Certificate will provide clarification regarding improvements on these lands (The explicit clarification is that you do not own the grounds your home/improvements sit on. Ameren does and that there need be no further discussion....i.e. potential adverse possession suits).

 Furthermore, your interests in the property on which you have built a structure may be transferred freely without the consent or approval of Ameren Missouri (That is as long as a buyer understands that Ameren owns the property, and NOT you, and they are fine with it after full disclosure that what you are selling is NOT YOURS). Furthermore, consistent with past practice at the Lake of the Ozarks, Ameren Missouri's consent will not be required in the event a prospective property owner wishes to finance the acquisition of a home (IF a prospective buyer can get title insurance in order for the home to be marketable…that is the big question) located in part on our fee-owned property (Yet, another reminder the property is THEIRS and NOT YOURS).

Our Lake of the Ozark's office is always available to answer property owner questions at 573-365-9212.

Sincerely,

Mark C. Jordan

Ameren Services Company

Managing Supervisor Real Estate

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what does this mean to you? Unfortunately if you got a letter like this one it is probably time to get advice from an attorney. Do not get warm fuzzies from this letter or the estoppels because you chose to be ignorant as to what those documents really mean. Know that a couple of local attorneys with title companies helped draft this document, so you may want to make sure the attorney you speak to had no part in the certificate being recorded against your property.

Learn about the adverse possession argument , and know that since you have not been asked to sign and agree to the terms of the estoppel, you have not consented to it. Know that you do have rights. Talk to your neighbors, and come up with a plan as to where you go from here.

http://www.lozstakeholders.blogspot.com/2011/12/adverse-possession-and-little-missouri.html

An attorney that I know has a complete understanding of this issue and has been researching it for years and watching this fiasco is Tim Sear. He could give you and your neighbors some insight where to go from here. His information is below.

Timothy J. Sear	6201 College Blvd. Suite 500 Overland Park, KS 66211
tsear@polsinelli.com	tel: 913.234.7402 fax: 913.451.6205

estoppel (n) - Bing Dictionary

es·top·pel [ e stópp'l ]

1. legal rule barring inconsistency: a legal rule that prevents somebody from stating a position inconsistent with one previously stated, especially when the earlier representation has been relied upon by others

The Plot Thickens...

As the FERC period for comment has ended lots of people have many questions about where we go from here.  I tell those people continue to grow our army with the truth…that is where we go from here.  Get the word out and wait for the marching orders.  We are not going anywhere.  We know how to fight and plan to.  As defenders of the Constitution (particularly the 5^th amendment) we won’t go quietly, that is a promise.

When revisiting some of the key phrases and words of the FERC and Ameren as of late, we must remember the truth that shadows these words and get the word out.

In a press release right after the first of the year from Jeff Green of Ameren addresses how swiftly Ameren is working to seek a solution for the “encroaching structures” built on the “Ameren Missouri-owned strip of land surrounding the Lake’s shoreline.

“The new FERC order clarifies the agency’s position regarding structures within the Project Boundary – an elevation-based, Ameren Missouri-owned strip of land surrounding the Lake’s shoreline.”

This statement from Ameren is offensive.  They double speak to the public over and over again.  They continually refer to the project boundary as property they own “fee simple”. ( Fee simple, by the way, means absolute ownership.)  Yet, they have NEVER paid a penny of taxes on this property and do not intend to.  Yes, you read that right.  On a recent radio debate between Jeff Green and myself on 2/2/2012 (  go here to listen:  http://www.krmsradio.com/mp3/FEB-2012-SHOWS/dircast.phpine ) we had the discussion on whether Ameren has ever paid taxes on the “Ameren Missouri-owned strip of land”.  He admitted that they do not because it is something that your deed says you, the property owner, have to do.  He is right.  However, what he failed to remember is that the part of the deed above  the part about the taxes says that you have the right “to use the surface of said lands, whether submerged or not, for any and all purposes what-so-ever, including the erection and maintenance of improvements thereon.”  As a condition of this easement it goes on to say you cannot interfere with the maintenance or operation of the dam and that you must pay your taxes on said improvements and lands.  Yet, isn’t it funny how Ameren has the power to take  one part of a deed and tell you that you have to abide by that part (the part about you paying their taxes), however, they can negate the part about what you get in exchange for paying those taxes (the easement that has been enjoyed for decades). 

See, even Ameren acknowledges to the FERC in their January 15, 2012 request for a boundary line amendment that they ALLOWED for those successors and assigns (you and me) to access and CONSTRUCT (gasp) in the project boundary. 

If you take the time to listen to that radio show I mentioned above you will find it interesting that Jeff Green argued with me that the easement did not mean “build” anything in the project boundary.  Someone may need to tell him to read Ameren’s own words in 2.1 of their request for the boundary amendment because it clearly spells out the FACT that UED (Union Electric) conveyed its ENTIRE OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTIES BELOW VARIOUS ELEVATIONS…..(Most notable)UED RESERVED AN EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS TO ALLOW ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY.  Thus making any notion of an "encroachment" not possible because those structures constructed were ALLOWED to be there!!!  Ameren says so in this document.

Read it here: http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/lakeoftheozarks/Documents/AmerenBoundaryAmendmentApplication-AppendixA.pdf

2.1 Fee Acquisition

UED purchased entire tracts of undeveloped and predominantly agricultural property. As the Dam and reservoir construction were completed, UED conveyed its entire ownership interest in portions of the properties below various elevations to UELP for the operations of the Project. In this conveyance, UED also granted UELP flooding easement over the remainder of its retained property. Significantly, and subject to certain limitations, UED reserved an easement for the benefit of its successors and assigns to allow access and construction within the UELP Property or Project boundary. Under an order from the Securities & Exchange Commission, UED sold the remainder of the property outside of the project boundary to private owners (UED's successors in title) subject to the flooding easement granted to UELP and conveyed to those successors the rights retained to allow access and construction on the lands within the Project boundary; however, such uses are subordinate to Project purposes.

Did you get that?  Ameren, of all things, mentions the FACT that they allowed access and construction within the project boundary.  Gasp.  They mentioned that FACT twice!  Twice in one paragraph!  So if they ALLOWED construction is there even such thing as an “encroachment”?  The answer is NO!

Why did they finally fess up to this you ask?  Because Ameren had not been forthcoming with these very relevant facts prior, the FERC looked like the Big Bad Wolf when they ordered the removal of 4500 structures, including homes, removed from the project boundary they were led to believe Ameren owned.  The public was outraged, thus the politicians in Washington, DC went on a head hunt.  Ameren went on record many times saying that they did not realize people were building in "their project boundary", but somehow that apparently was not that believable to the FERC.  When you look at how the FERC shredded Ameren in November of 2012 with an order they first scolded Ameren and forced them to tell the truth because things were not adding up for the FERC :

http://www.ferc.gov/media/news-releases/2011/2011-4/11-10-11-factsheet.asp

Factsheet:November10,2011
UnionElectricCompany
Docket No. P-459-310/Osage

“Over many years, Ameren failed to carry out this obligation. Ameren’s repeated failure to properly implement the terms of its license has allowed matters to get to the point where it does not even know exactly what structures have been built within the project boundary and whether they were authorized. FERC recognizes that Ameren’s failures have left local property owners in an extremely difficult position.”

The FERC goes on to say:

“Whatever property rights that owners have in lands within the boundaries of the Osage Project, whether conferred by deed, lease, easement or other conveyance, have not been and will not be altered by FERC’s actions today. Nothing in this order affects any previously issued valid permit authorizing a non-project use of project lands or waters.”

So the FERC acknowledges that “whatever property rights that owners have in lands within boundaries of the project (project boundary), have NOT BEEN and WILL NOT BE ALTERED BY FERC’S actions.  They make a point to say that NOTHING IN THIS ORDER AFFECTS ANY PREVIOUSLY ISSUED VALID PERMITS AUTHORIZING A NON-PROJECT USE OF PROJECT LANDS OR WATERS.”

So, the key word in the sentence here is “valid”.  What does the FERC consider “valid”?  Do they acknowledge the FACT in 2.1 that Ameren by their own admission in their words ,” reserved an easement for the benefit of its successors and assigns(you and me the property owner) to allow access and construction within the UELP Property or Project boundary”?   How much more “valid” does one get than Ameren acknowledging that this right was conveyed by their predecessor and has been enjoyed for decades as spelled out in the DEEDS? 

In the next edict of the FERC to Ameren they say:

“For structures without valid deeds, permits or easements, Ameren must determine whether they interfere with the Osage project. If they do, Ameren must take some action, such as redrawing the boundaries of the project, so those structures no longer are sitting on project lands. This would put them outside of the project boundaries and therefore outside of FERC jurisdiction. “

The question you ask?  What do they mean by “interfere with the Osage Project”?  Do they mean interfere with the operation and maintenance of the dam?  Or do they leave subjectivity to the interpretation of this sentence to Ameren?  Pretty vague if you ask me.  However, the FERC says Ameren MUST take some action!!  They say that Ameren must take those properties out of the project boundary and outside of the FERC jurisdiction. 

So as you start to get the warm fuzzy feeling about the FERC and how nice they are to watch out for you, we are jolted back to reality and left feeling confused yet again when Ameren makes a statement such as this in a recent press release:

“The proposed boundary change does not change current property ownership.”

Like I said, don’t breathe a sigh of relief just yet.  Understand that Ameren means their current property ownership, not yours.   Clearly by ignoring your easement, calling your home an "encroachment",  and “letting” you pay the taxes on “their” project boundary your rights have been changed.  Make no mistake about that.  Whether legal or not, that is where our opinion differs from Ameren.  We believe that Ameren has violated our 5^th amendment to the Constitution in taking the property from us that they need in order to implement the SMP.  However, we have not been compensated for the property we pay our taxes on and fairly compensated for the taking of the rights that our deeds have entitled us to for decades.    

In a recent article illustrating that Ameren has a LOAN in the hundreds of millions of dollars on the project boundary in your back yard, understand that Ameren cannot give away or change the rights on something they do not own.  They do not have that authority because they do not own that ground to change current property ownership.  This further complicates an already devastating situation here at our lake.  Ameren never brought this information to light.  An attorney found this information in a search.  When asked about the LOAN ON THE PROJECT BOUNDARY Ameren officials have admitted to it.

Read about the loan on the project boundary here:  http://lakebusjournal.com


There are petitions out there right now demanding the 660 contour and the respect for our property rights by acknowledging our deeds of record.   We want the 660 with quit claim deeds, and deeds of release from Ameren's bank.  That is the only way to know the property you pay taxes on is really yours.  We plan to gather thousands of signatures and have an incredible start.

Look for a link to the petition at www.lakeareaconservativeclub.org.  Also, you will find petitions at Lake Office Supply on highway 5 in Camdenton next to Save-A-Lot.  We have foot soldiers that always have them on their person, and you can always call Cliff for a location near you.  We have a game plan.  We are not going away.  We will stand united to protect our Constitution and what is ours.