Did you read
FERC’s revised order and press release sent out on November 19? Did you laugh? It is unbelievable that a federal agency
had to send out a press release to tell us that we MISUNDERSTOOD their original
order of July 26, 2011. Do they really
think we are that dumb? Apparently they
do. Let’s take a look.
Taken from
FERC’s website:
Frequently
Asked Questions
Will FERC be taking away my property rights?
No. Nothing in Ameren’s Shoreline Management Plan, the July 26 order or this order has any impact on property rights. Whatever rights landowners 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.
Will FERC be taking away my property rights?
No. Nothing in Ameren’s Shoreline Management Plan, the July 26 order or this order has any impact on property rights. Whatever rights landowners 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.
Really? Well, I would ask those guys at the FERC how
they best define “property rights”. In
Missouri we feel that when you make statements like this...:
"....the Commission does not allow the interests of private property owners to override the public’s use and enjoyment of
project lands and waters appropriate actions to resolve such non-conforming
structures and encroachments with the goal of removing them from the project
boundary"…
...they probably don’t interpret those
rights the same as we do. Did you get
that? The FERC does not ALLOW the
interests of private property owners to override the public use and enjoyment
of project lands (the project boundary in your
back yard). That says your rights do not matter if you own private
property. Your rights do NOT trump the interest of the
public according to the FERC.
Taken from FERC site:
Did FERC reject Ameren’s proposal to “grandfather”
existing structures? Did FERC reject Ameren’s Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)?
No. In the July 26 order, FERC generally approved Ameren’s proposal, which specifically provided that many existing structures would not be “grandfathered,” and made a few procedural changes. In this most recent order, FERC makes clear that it is accepting Ameren’s new proposal to “grandfather” existing structures that were built before March 28, 2008.
First of
all, be aware of what the “no” in this answer really means. There were two questions asked above. Let us be crystal clear, FERC did reject
grandfathering structures in their first order because those structures did not conform with the purposes of the project boundary according to the FERC; Ameren did NOT ASK to grandfather structures, thus the answer here would be “yes”. The second question is whether the FERC
rejected Ameren’s SMP. The answer is “yes”. They did not accept it as written or we would
not be here now. No. In the July 26 order, FERC generally approved Ameren’s proposal, which specifically provided that many existing structures would not be “grandfathered,” and made a few procedural changes. In this most recent order, FERC makes clear that it is accepting Ameren’s new proposal to “grandfather” existing structures that were built before March 28, 2008.
There is a map with 4200 structures identified and put out by Ameren that the FERC has a copy of. They could not have been that "out of the loop" to not know what all of those yellow and red dots meant. Could they? Ameren's SMP was submitted in 2008. If the FERC did not know what all of those 4200 little dots meant should they have clarified that in the past 3 years?
In the
July 26 order, FERC generally approved
Ameren’s proposal…the word “generally” makes this definition very ambiguous. They
admit they were NOT going to “grandfather” structures in the original
order. And, the “procedural changes” part
means something that is not good for homeowners. Let us look at what the July 26 order REALLY
says with reference to these two issues:
Non-Conforming
Structures
FERC ORDER JULY 26, 2011
Pg. 12 of FERC Order July 26, 2011
37. In
addition to not
grandfathering pre-existing structures……Ameren UE also intends to notify
property owners
who appear to claim ownership (You
will have to pay for your own survey to prove whether or not you own
your property and then jump through all of the hoops if it is found you are in
their project boundary/your easement. ***Read earlier
posts for details***) of non-conforming structures prior to this
deadline. Upon registration of a
non-conforming structure, AmerenUE would consider four options for appropriately
managing the non-conforming structure:MANAGE=FEES FOR YOU THE PROPERTY OWNER
(1) remove
and relocate the non-conforming structure outside of the project boundary; (TEAR DOWN YOUR HOUSE)
(2)seek revision of the project boundary to
exclude the non-conforming structure;(DID NOT HAPPEN THEN….BUT, COULD POSSIBLY NOW BECAUSE WE ARE WIDE AWAKE
AND MAD.)
(3) take action to affirm or secure rights
necessary to manage and control the non-conforming structure;
(THIS IS THE AVENUE IT APPEARS AMEREN WAS PURSUING. THIS MEANS SINCE THey HAD TO ‘MANAGE AND
CONTROL’ YOUR PROPERTY YOU WOULD BE CHARGED A LEASE OR PERMIT FEE ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS FOR YOUR PROPERTY).
or
(4) convey an interest (THIS DOES NOT SAY CONVEY “THE” INTEREST, BUT ‘AN’ INTEREST) in project property to an applicant, which will allow
the applicant to continue the use (YOU COULD STILL “USE” YOUR HOUSE) of the non-conforming structure and to transfer the interest. AmerenUE would file an annual report with the Commission for all nonconforming structures for which interests have been conveyed (SO CLEARLY THIS WILL COST YOU ON AN ANNUAL BASIS SINCE THEY HAVE TO REPORT TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT YOUR STRUCTURE ANNUALLY ) under this section, including information on the nature of the interest conveyed, the location of the nonconforming structure, and the nature of the use of the non-conforming structure.
40. As
such, AmerenUE should be required to develop a plan and schedule to inspect and
identify all lands within the project boundary; identify existing
non-conforming structures and encroachments; identify the project purposes
being served by the underlying lands, and take appropriate actions to resolve
such non-conforming structures and encroachments with the goal of removing them from the
project boundary. In the majority of cases, the existing non-conforming structure/encroachment
should be removed in a timely manner and the site restored to pre-existing
conditions. ( So we “misunderstood” did we? What is the goal? Check it out for yourself. It is all there. Look at the July 26, 2011 order on page
13. Majority means almost all to me…removed
in a timely manner means that those structures must be taken out so the site
can be restored to what it looked like back in the 1920s).
The FERC press release also said, “The agency said that it has not required any shoreline homes and structures with valid deeds, permits and easements to be removed”. The key word in this statement is “valid”. I had the privilege of being a part of a conference call with the FERC officials and Senator McCaskill (the link appears on the sidebar). I asked Mr. Katz from FERC the very pointed question as to whether or not he acknowledged our easement at Lake of the Ozarks that has been attached to the majority of deeds since 1932. His response to me was “that is a matter for the courts.” Based on his answer does the FERC believe that our deeds are “valid”? They will NOT answer that question with a direct yes or no. They revert to their spin and try to make us believe that they are on our side. I believe that their lack of commitment to answer the most simple questions with simple and understandable answers speaks volumes.
No comments:
Post a Comment