We are missing the point here I think , Its not that we are in violation of State or federal law , which governs farm land across the Nation . It's that the city of Edwardsville doesn't think the State Statutes starting with Chapter 12.--CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES Article 7.--PLANNING AND ZONING 12-758. Same; existing uses; alterations; agricultural land exempted.Ordinances and amendments thereto, regulations adopted under authority of this act shall not apply to the existing use of any building or land, but shall apply to any alteration of a building to provide for a change in use or a change in the use of any building or land after the effective date of any regulations adopted under this act. History: L. 1991, ch. 56, § 18; L. 1997, ch. 147, § 9; May 1. which gives the cities guide lines for enacting ordinances. We think the city is trying to be the 500 pound gorilla and do as they please inspite of State laws exempting farm land . The city has spent thousands already fighting a battle they can't win with the are about to be sued plus thousands on attorney fees and still wanting to spend $500,000.00 on there offices at city hall . It is true the the Davidson's own AHL RESCUE but the Davidson's are a production breeding farm of World Class Equines first (Standing 5 Stallions ) and 23 brood mares and the city has been trying to regulate our farm production .and wants us to close the rescue altogether .
We agree with Scarlet Mission that city hall doesn't care about the residents of Edwardsville and that they are a joke . We all so think its time they stopped passing ordinances without having a website to see what their passing , very convenient for the city I'd say .
City of EdwardsvilleCouncil Proceedings April 18, 2006 Is becoming a tree city something new ? Information: Edwardsville was again recognized as Tree City USA in 2005. Page 4 http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:... This info was found on page 4 .
KANSAS TREE AND SHRUBBERY LAW The Kansas tree and shrubbery law, K.S.A. 12-3201 et seq., gives cities jurisdiction over trees and shrubberies upon all streets, public right-of-ways and alleys with that city. K.S.A. 12-3204 allows cities limited jurisdiction over trees and shrubs on private property within that city. (Please note that a utility easement is not considered a public right-of-way, see Attorney General's Opinion 2003-28 at the end of this document.)
Before a city can exercise jurisdiction over trees or shrubs on private property within the city, the city must determine, based upon a laboratory test or other supporting evidence, that trees or tree materials or shrubs located upon private property are infected or infested with or harbour any tree or plant disease or insect pest or larvae, which, if uncontrolled, may constitute a hazard to or result in the damage or destruction of other trees or shrubs in the community.
The city may request competent state or federal authority to provide such evidence. KDA Plant Protection and Weed Control Program may be contacted to conduct an inspection pursuant to K.S.A. 12-3204 at (785) 862-2180. If the city requests an inspection by KDA, the city should be prepared to provide specialized equipment necessary to conduct the inspection such as a ladder or bucket truck to reach the canopy of tall trees.
April 17, 1996 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 96-38 Kevin Hill Brown County Attorney Courthouse, 601 Oregon Street Hiawatha, Kansas 66434-2283 Re:
Cities and Municipalities--Buildings, Structures and Grounds--Neighborhood Revitalization Act; Designation of Entire County; Impact of Repeal of Act; Sale of Impacted Property; Constitutionality of Act Synopsis:
The neighborhood revitalization act authorizes a municipality to designate only one or more areas for revitalization and not the entire municipality. Additionally, the act allows rebates only to the taxpayer who made the improvements . Cited herein: K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 12-1770; 12-17,114; 12-17,115; 12-17,116; 12-17,117; 12-17,118; 77-201. The neighborhood revitalization act, K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 12-17,114 et seq. (act) which is designed to improve blighted areas {Blighted Area Section of a city in which a majority of the structures are dilapidated.} in municipalities by encouraging property owners to improve their properties through the use of property tax rebates. The act authorizes a municipality to designate an area as a neighborhood revitalization area and then develop a plan. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 12-17,116 and 12-17,117. A neighborhood revitalization fund is created and any increment in ad valorem property taxes resulting from the improvements by a taxpayer to his or her property in the revitalization area is credited to the fund and used to return all or a portion to the taxpayer as a rebate. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 12,17,118. The concern regarding the facial constitutionality of the act is difficult to address in the absence of a specific query that directs us to a potential constitutional objection. . INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAXS . Criteria used to Determine what Property is Eligible All property within the District, as such term is used in the Act, is eligible for Revitalization. Property used after the Improvements for agricultural or any non-commercial, non-industrial or non-residential uses is not eligible. As a result of the Improvements, the appraised valuation must increase by $5,000 for single family and two-family residential and by $10,000 for multifamily and commercial property. Improvements that do not increase the appraised valuation by the foregoing amounts will not be eligible for a property tax rebate. The Improvements must conform to all codes, rules, and regulations that are in effect at the time the Improvements are made. Improvements must be authorized by public improvement plans or building permit when applicable. Prior to a property being eligible for Revitalization, a property owner must enter into a Development Agreement with the City that will set forth, among other things, the public and private infrastructure (“Infrastructure”) to be constructed by the property owner.
Here we go again , not realizing its not the farm or rancher that will pay the tax but the consumer at the check out line. just another way to mask another tax hike . don't understand why they think people cant see this . only goes to prove the ole saying that poop rolls down hill .
A little background may be in order here. So-called "right to farm" laws By the 1990s, virtually all states had approved this kind of exemption. The original right-to-farm laws were intended to protect pre-existing agricultural operations that conformed to "generally accepted agricultural practices". These were traditional family farms, where a small amount of waste was generated and all or most of it was recycled onto the land and where the farm did much of its business, both buying and selling, locally. The initial laws focused on nuisance suits by neighbors. In the 1980s and 1990s, protected by right-to-farm laws : Some, like Oklahoma, Wyoming, Tennessee and Kansas responded by modifying the laws so that they specifically covered large feedlots. Nine states granted immunity from nuisance suits only within agricultural districts, defined by county administrators. Within these districts, farmers could be exempt from nuisance suits (and often When courts held there was no immunity from nuisance suits on land not zoned for farming, the legislature amended the act to cover expansion of operations or a complete change in the farming operations on any land, regardless of zoning, as long as farmers are in compliance with state regulations.The second revision also expressly prohibits local governments from enacting regulations more stringent than those established at the state level . Im thinking that if my legal group can find this Law , the city should have been able to . Maybe its time to look at a Recall of CITY Officials . Sam Davidson
Our name is Davidson not Donaldson , And I said the city council was clannish not the cities persons , We think the cities people are hard working younger persons and it being run by the 37% of older persons living in the area . . and far as the smell & runoff there was none , is what I said . They never proved it . and the so called runoff was supposed be causing aliege in neibors pond which was Duck Weed which we proved to the city council .
Horse manure spurs debate, court battle
We are missing the point here I think , Its not that we are in violation of State or federal law , which governs farm land across the Nation . It's that the city of Edwardsville doesn't think the State Statutes starting with Chapter 12.--CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
Article 7.--PLANNING AND ZONING
12-758. Same; existing uses; alterations; agricultural land exempted.Ordinances and amendments thereto, regulations adopted under authority of this act shall not apply to the existing use of any building or land, but shall apply to any alteration of a building to provide for a change in use or a change in the use of any building or land after the effective date of any regulations adopted under this act. History: L. 1991, ch. 56, § 18; L. 1997, ch. 147, § 9; May 1.
which gives the cities guide lines for enacting ordinances. We think the city is trying to be the 500 pound gorilla and do as they please inspite of State laws exempting farm land . The city has spent thousands already fighting a battle they can't win with the are about to be sued plus thousands on attorney fees and still wanting to spend $500,000.00 on there offices at city hall . It is true the the Davidson's own AHL RESCUE but the Davidson's are a production breeding farm of World Class Equines first (Standing 5 Stallions ) and 23 brood mares and the city has been trying to regulate our farm production .and wants us to close the rescue altogether .
June 25, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Should Edwardsville pay to update its City Hall?
We agree with Scarlet Mission that city hall doesn't care about the residents of Edwardsville and that they are a joke . We all so think its time they stopped passing ordinances without having a website to see what their passing , very convenient for the city I'd say .
May 28, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Edwardsville council hears presentation on Tree City USA
City of EdwardsvilleCouncil Proceedings April 18, 2006 Is becoming a tree city something new ? Information: Edwardsville was again recognized as Tree City USA in 2005. Page 4 http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:... This info was found on page 4 .
February 15, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Edwardsville council hears presentation on Tree City USA
KANSAS TREE AND SHRUBBERY LAW
The Kansas tree and shrubbery law, K.S.A. 12-3201 et seq., gives cities jurisdiction over trees and shrubberies upon all streets, public right-of-ways and alleys with that city. K.S.A. 12-3204 allows cities limited jurisdiction over trees and shrubs on private property within that city. (Please note that a utility easement is not considered a public right-of-way, see Attorney General's Opinion 2003-28 at the end of this document.)
Before a city can exercise jurisdiction over trees or shrubs on private property within the city, the city must determine, based upon a laboratory test or other supporting evidence, that trees or tree materials or shrubs located upon private property are infected or infested with or harbour any tree or plant disease or insect pest or larvae, which, if uncontrolled, may constitute a hazard to or result in the damage or destruction of other trees or shrubs in the community.
The city may request competent state or federal authority to provide such evidence. KDA Plant Protection and Weed Control Program may be contacted to conduct an inspection pursuant to K.S.A. 12-3204 at (785) 862-2180. If the city requests an inspection by KDA, the city should be prepared to provide specialized equipment necessary to conduct the inspection such as a ladder or bucket truck to reach the canopy of tall trees.
February 13, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Edwardsville council hears presentation on Tree City USA
April 17, 1996
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 96-38
Kevin Hill
Brown County Attorney
Courthouse, 601 Oregon Street
Hiawatha, Kansas 66434-2283
Re:
Cities and Municipalities--Buildings, Structures and Grounds--Neighborhood Revitalization Act; Designation of Entire County; Impact of Repeal of Act; Sale of Impacted Property; Constitutionality of Act
Synopsis:
The neighborhood revitalization act authorizes a municipality to designate only one or more areas for revitalization and not the entire municipality. Additionally, the act allows rebates only to the taxpayer who made the improvements . Cited herein: K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 12-1770; 12-17,114; 12-17,115; 12-17,116; 12-17,117; 12-17,118; 77-201.
The neighborhood revitalization act, K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 12-17,114 et seq. (act) which is designed to improve blighted areas {Blighted Area Section of a city in which a majority of the structures are dilapidated.} in municipalities by encouraging property owners to improve their properties through the use of property tax rebates. The act authorizes a municipality to designate an area as a neighborhood revitalization area and then develop a plan. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 12-17,116 and 12-17,117. A neighborhood revitalization fund is created and any increment in ad valorem property taxes resulting from the improvements by a taxpayer to his or her property in the revitalization area is credited to the fund and used to return all or a portion to the taxpayer as a rebate. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 12,17,118.
The concern regarding the facial constitutionality of the act is difficult to address in the absence of a specific query that directs us to a potential constitutional objection. . INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAXS . Criteria used to Determine what Property is Eligible All property within the District, as such term is used in the Act, is eligible for Revitalization.
Property used after the Improvements for agricultural or any non-commercial, non-industrial or non-residential uses is not eligible.
As a result of the Improvements, the appraised valuation must increase by $5,000 for single family and two-family residential and by $10,000 for multifamily and commercial property. Improvements that do not increase the appraised valuation by the foregoing amounts will not be eligible for a property tax rebate.
The Improvements must conform to all codes, rules, and regulations that are in effect at the time the Improvements are made. Improvements must be authorized by public improvement plans or building permit when applicable.
Prior to a property being eligible for Revitalization, a property owner must enter into a Development Agreement with the City that will set forth, among other things, the public and private infrastructure (“Infrastructure”) to be constructed by the property owner.
February 12, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Farmers may wind up paying for gas produced by their cows
Here we go again , not realizing its not the farm or rancher that will pay the tax but the consumer at the check out line. just another way to mask another tax hike . don't understand why they think people cant see this . only goes to prove the ole saying that poop rolls down hill .
February 11, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sam Davidson says he'll challenge an Edwardsville ordinance that would restrict the number of horses
A little background may be in order here. So-called "right to farm" laws By the 1990s, virtually all states had approved this kind of exemption. The original right-to-farm laws were intended to protect pre-existing agricultural operations that conformed to "generally accepted agricultural practices". These were traditional family farms, where a small amount of waste was generated and all or most of it was recycled onto the land and where the farm did much of its business, both buying and selling, locally. The initial laws focused on nuisance suits by neighbors.
In the 1980s and 1990s,
protected by right-to-farm laws : Some, like Oklahoma, Wyoming, Tennessee and Kansas responded by modifying the laws so that they specifically covered large feedlots. Nine states granted immunity from nuisance suits only within agricultural districts, defined by county administrators. Within these districts, farmers could be exempt from nuisance suits (and often When courts held there was no immunity from nuisance suits on land not zoned for farming, the legislature amended the act to cover expansion of operations or a complete change in the farming operations on any land, regardless of zoning, as long as farmers are in compliance with state regulations.The second revision also expressly prohibits local governments from enacting regulations more stringent than those established at the state level . Im thinking that if my legal group can find this Law , the city should have been able to . Maybe its time to look at a Recall of CITY Officials . Sam Davidson
September 21, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Edwardsville horse rescuer vows to fight
Our name is Davidson not Donaldson , And I said the city council was clannish not the cities persons , We think the cities people are hard working younger persons and it being run by the 37% of older persons living in the area . . and far as the smell & runoff there was none , is what I said . They never proved it . and the so called runoff was supposed be causing aliege in neibors pond which was Duck Weed which we proved to the city council .
September 18, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )