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.

What Part of “NO THANK YOU” Does Ameren Not Understand?

Does anyone find it very offensive that when Ameren recently submitted their new “draft proposal” to the FERC, that referred to the flood of over 400 comments by LOZ Stakeholders (submitted in the darkest days of winter, over the Christmas holiday, in 30 short days) as misinformed?  Since you disagree with Ameren, you “misunderstood” what they are trying to do to HELP you.  In other words….you were not willing to drink the Cool-Aide.  You educated yourself and your neighbors, you stood with the Camden County Commission in their request for the 660 to preserve our economic engine at the lake, and you said “no thank you”.  In return you are referred to as a bunch of dummies who “don’t get it”.  Read below to see how Ameren relayed your overwhelming response to the FERC.

http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/lakeoftheozarks/Pages/FERCProposal.aspx

In all, over 400 comments were filed on the Draft Amendment Application and are addressed in

the comment summary table included in Appendix F. Of these comments, approximately 23

percent supported the proposed boundary amendment. However, many of the commenter’s

misunderstood certain critical aspects of the draft amendment application. The following is a

summary of these larger misunderstandings that Ameren Missouri addressed in its response to

Did you get that?  In 423 comments to be exact, ONLY 23% were in agreement with Ameren’s proposal.  In the last SMP where comments were requested the balance appeared to be from resource agencies or the members of the SMP team, NOT the public.  The majority in that case were in favor of Ameren.  This time the real representation of the true stakeholders was represented.  You spoke LOUDLY!  Check out the comments here:

http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/lakeoftheozarks/Documents/FERCPublicComments.pdf

Ameren’s response to the FERC based on the “misinformed” public:

• Misunderstanding that the current FERC boundary is established at elevation 660’ and

that the proposed boundary is somehow adding property to the project. The FERC

Osage Project Boundary Amendment Application Rev 1 – 1/31/12 19 boundary has never been set at elevation 660’ and the boundary amendment application proposes to remove 28,251 acres of land from FERC jurisdiction.

• Misunderstanding that the reason behind the amendment application is to allow for an

increase in fees to landowners with property remaining within the proposed boundary.

No part of this application proposes or contemplates increased permitting fees,

requirements for adjacent owners to lease Ameren Missouri shoreline lands for a fee, or

any changes to the way Ameren Missouri handles permits for docks, seawalls, ramps and

similar permitted facilities.

• Misunderstanding that the amendment application is an attempt by Ameren Missouri to

seize private property and / or alter existing parcel lines. Parcel lines and property rights

will not change under this boundary amendment proposal, which is simply designed to

remove excess lands not needed for project operation from FERC jurisdiction.

• Misunderstanding that the amendment application proposes boundary changes needed to

increase the water levels and the operating regime of the Osage Project. Ameren

Missouri is not proposing any changes to project operation, water levels, or the existing

guide curve at Lake of the Ozarks as part of this amendment application.

 Misunderstanding that the amendment application will result in unfettered public access

to private property within the FERC boundary. All Lake front properties have an

Ameren Missouri controlled strip of land adjacent to the lake that is project land and

accessible from the reservoir by the public. The proposed boundary amendment does not

change the currently defined access to project lands that the public and adjacent owners

have always enjoyed.

You should be applauded LOZ Stakeholders.  Now let us see how the FERC blows off the overwhelming majority.  It should be interesting.  What good is public comment if you are not going to consider it?  Keep up the good work.  Continue to talk to your neighbors and as the owners in your neighborhoods who have been gone all winter come back to the lake for the season, give them an earful.  Let them know exactly what is going on.  This fight is far from over.

Hey FERC and Ameren if you are reading this...just a little FYI...we understood with crystal clear clarity EXACTLY what your words meant. We have not been confused, and we are not stupid. We NEVER misunderstood. Ameren, do not speak for us.  You do not represent us.   We are completely capable of doing that for ourselves. We get it. We read your Appendix B. We read the FERC order. We have read the new boundary line amendment. We understand completely, always have.

Misinformation Is An Ugly Thing

A recent article in the Lake Expo here: http://lakeexpo.com/community/community_news/article_6c8d9538-4385-11e1-bb0d-0019bb2963f4.html

It is a press release from Ameren, and a rebuttal to all of the "misinformation" that is out there, this coming in the form of a letter from Jeff Green from Ameren talking about how misinformed lake area residents are. Sigh  .Below, you will see a few excerpts from Mr. Green’s letter, and my rebuttal that follows.Be educated lake area residents and the truth will set you free.Remember:Harry S. Truman once said “if you can’t convince them, confuse them.”Don’t be confused.Be educated.Check the facts for yourself and render your own decision.Take no one’s word for anything.Fight back with facts.

____________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Green says, * There are no locations at the Lake where Ameren Missouri's current project boundary occurs at 660. In all instances the boundary is 662 or higher

This information is disputable. Thousands of property owners have deeds that explicitly read that they own to the 660 contour elevation. Ameren says those deeds are wrong. We say prove it. The deeds of record show one thing, Ameren says another. Many people believe it is the burden of Ameren to prove in each instance how those deeds are wrong. We are the Show Me State. Show us Ameren. Show us.

Also, I would ask Mr. Green if he was selectively forgetting the Cedar Glenn Condominiums who have a project boundary at the 660 contour elevation that was adjusted by Ameren a few years ago? "In all instances" in my opinion would mean 100% of the time....did Mr. Green just forget about this one instance? Would this be an example of accidental "misinformation"? Does Ameren get a free pass?    When Ameren talks about "misinformation", could they be referring to their own based on this statement?   

The article outlining what happened at Cedar Glenn is found here:

http://www.lakebusjournal.com/issues/10012011/PDF/OCT_BNJ_2011_1.pdf

As well, in approximately 29% of lake front property at LOZ, Ameren ONLY has an easement to flood. In these instances, homeowners have deeds that describe their property boundaries to the middle of the channel of the lake. For Ameren to say that in NO case is there any project boundary lower than the 662 currently is “misinformation”. An easement to flood and a definitive project boundary spelled out by contour elevation is quite another.   With those who have granted Ameren ONLY an easement to flood there is no defined project boundary, thus being the case Mr. Green's statement is misleading to suggest that in no case is there any boundary less than the 660.  These owners own ALL THE WAY TO THE MIDDLE of the channel in many cases.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Leasing, Fees, Public Access, Property Ownership

Jeff Green says, * No part of our proposal involves leasing back, increasing fees or significantly changing the way we handle permits for docks, seawalls, ramps and similar permitted facilities. Unfortunately, Lake residents continue to receive misinformation on this point.
Key word is “significantly”. One word can change the meeting of everything. Note: What is significant to one may not be to another. This word should concern us all without knowing definitively what “significant” means. 

As far as the idea of “leasing”…well, just take a look at the words of Ameren’s Appendix B and the recent FERC Order, and wonder why we might think that leasing could be part of our future. Let Ameren and the FERC’s own words incriminate them.  To treat us like silly alarmists, and for Ameren to say "NO PART OF OUR PROPOSAL INVOLVES LEASING BACK" I implore you to carefully read their words.    The “misinformation” surely is a problem. I think lake area residents would agree with that, but Ameren may need to point the long finger of blame right back at themselves for this. Read their words and you decide.

B-13

Upon timely receipt of a completed registration packet and a completed application to acquire an interest in project lands (application discussed below) Ameren Missouri will review the registration and application materials and consider whether it is appropriate to convey an interest in project property (typically a permit or lease)

 B-14

When considering whether to transfer an interest in project property and when considering various interest that may be conveyed (including but not limited to permits or leasehold interests),

 10 Certain shoreline uses would be allowed in each shoreline use classification and AmerenUE would be able to convey certain interests in project lands and waters (through leases, rights-of-way, fee-title conveyances) or permit certain non-project uses without resource agency notification and/or Commission approval.

Such a conveyance may include among other things, but are not limited to, a conditional, non-transferable lease that would terminate upon the lessee’s vacancy of property, a mitigation plan for allowing project purposes to be impacted during the temporary use; and provision for requiring removal of the structure at such time. Any such document should include appropriate conditions to ensure the encroachment is managed and maintained in an appropriate manner.

 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Green says, “No property rights are being taken away”. However, read very carefully exactly what Ameren vows in their Appendix B.    Apparently their interpretation of property rights and ours is quite different.  Understanding, In order to clear any trees or vegetation you now have to have “authorization” from Ameren.  Does this mean that you can not "landscape" without permission?   Do you interpret that as property rights taken away?  I mean, if you can't freely landscape your own yard (their project boundary) to their liking there will be repercussions.   If you do not follow Ameren’s vegetative cover policy your permit for your dock can be cancelled and legal action may follow. This is why Ameren wants to keep the “project boundary” to the 662. It affords them that strip of land to ensure that their vegetative cover policy is enforceable since your yard is their “project boundary”. Ameren is telling the truth if “take away” is not the same thing as “suspend or revoke” to them. Our property rights are not going to be taken away if we don’t follow their rules. Our property rights will just be “suspended or revoked” if we do not abide by the vegetative cover policy in their project boundary.

 “Any unauthorized clearing of trees or vegetation or failure to restore trees and/or vegetation as outlined above may result in the immediate cancellation of the individual’s permit(s), as well as, possible legal action to require the re vegetation of the affected area. Ameren Missouri may require residential and non-residential non-project use proposals to include vegetation protection and/or replacement plans where appropriate. Ameren Missouri reserves the right to suspend, revoke and/or limit other requested facilities (i.e., dock slips) for developments that violate the provisions of this policy.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

My neighbor said that Ameren officials told him that since his deck would fall within the 662 he would need a “permit”. So no leases needed in this instance, this is true. However, a permit will be required. Is this just a bad? See what FERC says about how Ameren will control and manage those “permitted” structures, and be your own judge on this one.

So, once again, as Jeff Green reminds us that “No property rights are being taken away”, read what could happen if you do not comply with the rules of the permit after you are subject to random audits that are part of the new plan.

 “Shoreline Management Plan Enforcement

56. AmerenUE is responsible for supervising and controlling the permitted uses and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with, any permits it has conveyed under its license. If any unauthorized activities or structures are identified along the lake shoreline, AmerenUE would hold the applicant responsible for correcting or removing the structure/activity, may revoke the permit, and/or charge enforcement fees. Further, if any non-project use/activity violates any conditions of AmerenUE’s project license or any other condition imposed by AmerenUE for the protection and enhancement of the project’s environmental, recreational, scenic, and historic values or if the terms of the permit are violated, AmerenUE would take any action necessary to correct the violation. AmerenUE would use GIS to help process permit applications and provide a visual record of all structures on the lake. AmerenUE proposes to conduct annual shoreline inspections and/or random permit audits to ensure compliance.”

 How is that “permit” looking to you now?  Apparently if you don't follow the rules your permit can and will be revoked and charge enforcement fees.  Ameren will take "any action necessary" to correct what they discern as a violation. What does that mean?  Scary.    Remember that Ameren also explicitly says this about the powers with which they have bestowed themselves:

 Since every possible situation cannot be anticipated, Ameren Missouri reserves the absolute right and discretion to make appropriate exceptions or modifications to Ameren Missouri’s requirements, to make special rulings, and impose additional requirements…..

Is any property owner safe with this unilateral power? Where are the checks and balances to ensure the property owners best interests are protected? The 660 would solve many problems quickly in the protection of our rights. Be educated. Know the truth. Misinformation is rampant. Just know where it is coming from.

Cynthia Davis's take on what is happening at LOZ

Used with permission.  It is good to know that there are good people running for office that clearly see what is going on here at our lake.  Learn more about Cynthia here:  http://votecynthia.com/

January 11, 2012 Issue No. 11 Does Anyone Have Property Rights?

How would you feel if the government told you that the land on which you built, on which you paid taxes and on which you have a clear legal title, is not really yours? How would you feel if you built a house, deck, garage or boat dock with a valid building permit, and you were told you could only have the use of it if you leased it back from the shoreline management company every year? How would you feel if environmentalists in Washington D.C. wanted to turn youpeople or their constitutional rights, it is up to the citizens to stand up for themselves and wage this battle to protect their property.

The Lake of the Ozarks is privately owned and should not be under national control or regulation. The only reasgn="justify" style="text-align: justify;"> The actions of FERC are based upon a new philosophy that the power of the national government trumps private ownership, despite the fact that some homeowners had deeds showing their property going to the middle of the lake. Some are proposing that the land owner can keep his structure if he pays to lease it back. To read more about this travesty, click here: Article

People should expect their legislators to protect them from government.

If you step back from the specifics and look at the big picture, several important themes emerge:

1.) Some legislators presume that every crisis calls for passing more laws. This is the wrong approach. We don't need more laws---we just need to live within the laws we already have. While some of the congressional delegation is filing bills, the right answer is for the non-elected bureaucrats to be restrained to a limited capacity that fits within our constitutional framework.

2.) The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States already says, "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." Check mate! You don't even have to be a lawyer to understand this. We should demand that the government go before a judge and jury made up of the peers---others who own land at the Lake of the Ozarks and have each case tried individually with the government having to pay all the costs before anyone can be denied any portion of his land.

3.) We must not allow unelected bureaucracies to make laws. Lawmaking functions belong strictly to elected bodies and should always to be reserved for the legislators alone. When congress passes laws to allow non-elected officials to make up their own rules, we have just opened the door for tyranny with no recourse.

Even if you don't live in the Lake of the Ozarks area, you need to know what is happening to our fellow citizens. This overreaching of big government is already infecting other communities in other states. This article shows that bigger government and more laws are the problem, not the solution. Article

The Lake of the Ozarks is referred to as one of the finest playgrounds in our state. You can be assured that as the Lt. Governor, I would fight this with the full weight of my office. We should not allow the national government to come in and confiscate our property or our prosperity from our innocent Missouri citizens anywhere! It is time to rise up and defend ourselves from this effort to hurt our people. When Washington DC starts to act like a big bully, we must all come to the rescue and demonstrate that we really are "The Show Me State"!

Your thoughts are important to me, so please let me know what you think. You can send me your comments by clicking here:

Mail to Cynthia

If you agree and want to be involved with our campaign to make Missouri a better state, please click here: Volunteer