Tiny Nebraska Town Says No to 1,100 Jobs, Citing Way of Life

[tod evans]

Tip of my hat to the locals..........


From Drudge;

Tiny Nebraska Town Says No to 1,100 Jobs, Citing Way of Life

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tiny-nebraska-town-1100-jobs-citing-life-38807185

Half-ton pickup trucks crowd the curb outside the One Horse Saloon, a neon Coors Light sign in the window and rib-eye steaks on the menu, but otherwise Nickerson, Nebraska, is nearly silent on a spring evening, with only rumbling freight trains interrupting bird songs.

Regional economic development officials thought it was the perfect spot for a chicken processing plant that would liven up the 400-person town with 1,100 jobs, more than it had ever seen. When plans leaked out, though, there was no celebration, only furious opposition that culminated in residents packing the fire hall to complain the roads couldn't handle the truck traffic, the stench from the plant would be unbearable and immigrants and out-of-towners would flood the area, overwhelming schools and changing the town's character.

"Everyone was against it," said Jackie Ladd, who has lived there for more than 30 years. "How many jobs would it mean for people here? Not many."

The village board unanimously voted against the proposed $300 million plant, and two weeks later, the company said they'd take their plant — and money — elsewhere.

Deep-rooted, rural agricultural communities around the U.S. are seeking economic investments to keep from shedding residents, but those very places face trade-offs that increasing numbers of those who oppose meat processing plants say threaten to burden their way of life and bring in outsiders.

"Maybe it's just an issue of the times in which we live in which so many people want certain things but they don't want the inconveniences that go with them," said Chris Young, executive director of the American Association of Meat Processors.

Nickerson fought against Georgia-based Lincoln Premium Poultry, which wanted to process 1.6 million chickens a week for warehouse chain Costco. It was a similar story in Turlock, California, which turned down a hog-processing plant last fall, and Port Arthur, Texas, where residents last week stopped a meat processing plant. There also were complaints this month about a huge hog processing plant planned in Mason City, Iowa, but the project has moved ahead.

The Nickerson plant would have helped area farmers, who mostly grow corn and soybeans, start up poultry operations and buy locally grown grain for feed, said Willow Holliback, who lives 40 miles away and heads an agriculture group that backed the proposal.

"When farmers are doing well, the towns are doing well," she said.

The question of who would work the tough jobs was at the forefront of the debate, though many were adamant they aren't anti-immigrant. Opposition leader Randy Ruppert even announced: "This is not about race. This is not about religion."

But both were raised at the raucous April 4 meeting where the local board rejected the plant. One speaker said he'd toured a chicken processing plant elsewhere and felt nervous because most of the workers were minorities.

More overtly, John Wiegert, from nearby Fremont where two meat processors employ many immigrants, questioned whether Nickerson's plant would attract legal immigrants from Somalia — more than 1,000 of whom have moved to other Nebraska cities for similar jobs, along with people from Mexico, Central America and Southeast Asia.

"Being a Christian, I don't want Somalis in here," Wiegert, who has led efforts to deny rental housing to immigrants in the country illegally, told the crowd. "They're of Muslim descent. I'm worried about the type of people this is going to attract."

Others pointed out that, given Nebraska's unemployment rate is among the nation's lowest near 3 percent, few local residents would accept the entry-level jobs. While the projected wage of $13 to $17 an hour was above the region's current median wage for production workers, opponents argued meat processors generally have high turnover.

"We aren't against jobs," farmer John Schauer said. "We want clean, stable jobs."

The land is flat and rich around Nickerson, which is a half-mile off a narrow state highway about 30 miles from Omaha. The town's tidy but often faded single-story homes sit on large, grassy lots. There's a small cluster of commercial buildings, most of them long shuttered, and a grain elevator.

Its school was demolished more than a decade ago, leaving only the old playground, but residents take pride in the regional school district. Superintendent Jeremy Klein told the village board he worried new students would overwhelm local schools and that tax breaks would limit any extra money to hire more teachers.

"It's impossible to know what the size of that impact will be," Klein said days later.

People seem to be more willing than in earlier eras to fight developments they think could harm the environment or change an area's character, University of Nebraska-Lincoln economics professor Eric Thompson said, even if the development offers an economic boost.

Mason City official Brent Trout said he heard all the arguments against the $240 million plant planned some 200 miles northeast of Nickerson: What's the environmental impact of an operation that will process up to 22,000 hogs daily? How will 2,000 new jobs affect the isolated city of 27,500?

It's already hard to attract employers to Mason City, which has lost about 10 percent of its population over the last 30 years, he said. But, like Nickerson, Mason City's best selling point is its focus on agriculture: "This is what Iowa is. This is what Iowa does," Trout said. "We raise pigs and we process pigs."

Although Nickerson residents have succeeded in pushing away the industrial-scale operation, opponents said they're getting better organized to help the town that's targeted next.

"I've lived in exotic places, but I've never wanted to live anywhere but here," said Chuck Folsom, an 88-year-old former Marine and farmer. "We've got to protect the land. We're not making any more of it."

[presence]

Tip of my hat to the locals..........

why are you anti people doing what they want on their own land?

[Origanalist]

Good for them. Everything in life shouldn't be about economic development. There is this little thing called quality of life to consider.

[presence]

wait wut?

when did this board become pro zoning?

[Origanalist]

why are you anti people doing what they want on their own land?


Regional economic development officials thought it was the perfect spot //

[tod evans]

why are you anti people doing what they want on their own land?

"People" are doing what they want, they're banding together in a community and telling big-ag to fuck off......

I understand.

I'm for kicking out Yankess and Ca. immigrants from the Ozarks too.......

[presence]

"People" are doing what they want, they're banding together in a community and telling big-ag to $#@! off......

no they're not. They're using the strong arm of the law to prevent their neighbors from utilizing their bought and paid for land.

that's theft.

[Origanalist]

no they're not. They're using the strong arm of the law to prevent their neighbors from utilizing their bought and paid for land.

that's theft.

And in doing so completely change the town and everything about it. Should everyone in that town have to just accept this transformation for one property owner?

[presence]

And in doing so completely change the town and everything about it. Should everyone in that town have to just accept this transformation for one property owner?

YES


. Zoning restricts current landowners based on the local power brokers. In the zoning process, someone gets hurt. Had the farmers of a township wanted to keep the area as farmland, they could have signed restrictive covenants guaranteeing crops instead of homes. Property rights, and the laws that purport to protect those rights, allow individuals to act in their own best interest. Zoning, collective decision-making, use the coercive power of government to restrict usage based on the whims of those in power.

https://mises.org/library/zoning-theft

Zoning is theft.


No different than license, permit, regulation, tax stamp, etc.

Theft: Coercive government violence against free people.

[presence]

I'm for kicking out Yankess and Ca. immigrants from the Ozarks too.......


"...either you accept government lording over you or you don't, this ain't Burger King, you don't get it your way." - tod evans

does not compute

[tod evans]

no they're not. They're using the strong arm of the law to prevent their neighbors from utilizing their bought and paid for land.

that's theft.

Yes they are.

Neighbors are banding together "as they want" to keep big-ag from purchasing land and developing it...

Put those processing plants in the cities where they belong.

[presence]

Yes they are.

Neighbors are banding together "as they want" to keep big-ag from purchasing land and developing it...

Put those processing plants in the cities where they belong.


If neighbors are "banding together" then they should come up with a fat wod of cash and offer it to the property owner in exchange for a restrictive covenant that states the land will not be used for meat processing.

Put up or shut up.

This is MY property and I'll do what I want with it or sell it to whomever I wish.


Contrary to the alleged necessity of zoning laws, there is ample scope for noncoercive solutions to zoning issues in the context of a free society of private-property ownership and nonaggression. In particular, private ownership of property allows for restrictive covenants to be agreed between the property owner and another party so that the allowable uses of land are limited according to the wishes of the parties. It follows that property owners within a given neighborhood may contractually agree to impose restrictions on themselves with respect to the allowable developments on their land or the allowable uses of their property.
In some cases, restrictive covenants may mimic the kinds of restrictions present in zoning laws and may therefore be used as a means of voluntary zoning. Property owners may agree to limit developments on their land to a certain height as in existing zoning laws; they may agree to paint their properties in a similar color scheme, as with some housing complexes; or they may agree to restrict the use of their property to particular uses, such as residential use.
It is no mystery why private-property owners might voluntarily undertake to restrict their own property rights. They might do so for monetary payment or other valuable consideration.

https://mises.org/library/how-zoning-rules-would-work-free-society

[angelatc]

wait wut?

when did this board become pro zoning?

Small local government. States rights. You know, Ron Paul kind of stuff. But I do agree that changing the rules after the property was purchased is wrong.

[tod evans]

does not compute

I don't want government to kick out Yankees and Ca. immigrants, I want government to get out of the way......

Locals can handle things just fine without state and federal interference...

[presence]

Small local government. States rights. You know, Ron Paul kind of stuff.
Just because government is local does not mean it has the right to act coercively through violence.

Ron supports voluntarism. Zoning isn't voluntary.


Show me a quote where Ron Paul promotes local zoning and land use regulations.


Here's a hint: You won't find any.

[timosman]

If neighbors are "banding together" then they should come up with a fat wod of cash and offer it to the property owner in exchange for a restrictive covenant that states the land will not be used for meat processing.

Put up or shut up.

This is MY property and I'll do what I want with it or sell it to whomever I wish.

You are assuming a level playing field. 400 peons against Costco with unlimited access to cheap credit. :D
Have you heard of the Federal Reserve?

[angelatc]

Just because government is local does not mean it has the right to act coercively through violence.

Ron supports voluntarism. Zoning isn't voluntary.


Show me a quote where Ron Paul promotes local zoning and land use regulations.


Here's a hint: You won't find any.

Dude, it's in the Constitution which I've heard Ron Paul talk about a couple of thousand times. All rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government belong to the state. If the state has the right to create zoning laws, then arguably they have the right to delegate that function to local government as well.

[tod evans]

If neighbors are "banding together" then they should come up with a fat wod of cash and offer it to the property owner in exchange for a restrictive covenant that states the land will not be used for meat processing.

Put up or shut up.

This is MY property and I'll do what I want with it or sell it to whomever I wish.



How do you know the neighbors didn't band together and concoct this plan before big-ag struck their deal?

I don't.....

But it's certainly something I could see farmers doing.

Ol' Smitty tries to sell his family farm for 1-1/2 times going rate to his neighbors and they tell him to get lost so Smitty calls his niece at Tyson and pitches a "deal"...

Now Smitty is butt-hurt and so is Tyson but Smitty is gone and the property is up for sale again at fair market value...

As an added benefit the dregs associated with poultry processing aren't living in the county...

[presence]

Dude, it's in the Constitution which I've heard Ron Paul talk about a couple of thousand times. All rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government belong to the state. If the state has the right to create zoning laws, then arguably they have the right to delegate that function to local government as well.



We often hear from “limited government” types talk of the Tenth Amendment that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” and this is all well and good. Conservatives have long seen the Tenth Amendment as a practical check on the powers of the central government and testament to the founders belief in local democracy.



But it is not enough to simply appeal to the Tenth Amendment.



If liberty loving Americans wish to restore their rights they should look to the much more radical, libertarian Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment protects rights not even listed in the Constitution. It was the founders’ insurance that bureaucrats would not misconstrue the language of the document to deny any individual rights.



Rand Paul explains:


https://joeyclark.liberty.me/rand-paul-speaks-up-for-the-9th-amendment/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITNa6sV14yY&feature=youtu.be


We need to defend the entire Bill of Rights. What does the Ninth Amendment say? Most people forget about the Ninth Amendment, but the Ninth Amendment was one of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights would have never passed without the Ninth Amendment because many of the critics said, well, if you list certain rights, the people will think that’s all of the rights, and they’ll think that that’s a complete listing. So the people who put the Bill of Rights on the Constitution said we need to make sure they know this is just the beginning. It’s an impartial or incomplete list of your Bill of Rights. So the Ninth Amendment says those rights not listed are not to be disparaged because

your rights come from your Creator and they are unlimited.

[presence]

How do you know the neighbors didn't band together and concoct this plan before big-ag struck their deal?

show me the contract that encumbers my deed or gtfo

[phill4paul]

If neighbors are "banding together" then they should come up with a fat wod of cash and offer it to the property owner in exchange for a restrictive covenant that states the land will not be used for meat processing.



If the processing plant worked in a vacuum your arguements might be acceptable. Have you ever been to one of these plants? Do you know how bad they smell and how far that smell travels? Same goes with all the poultry houses that go with it. Also add in the infrastructure, school expansion, etc. etc. that local property owners are going to have to divvy into.
Nope, freedom to do whatever you want on your property does not exist if it affects a whole community (in their view) negatively.

[tod evans]

show me the contract that encumbers my deed or gtfo

My county has the authority to restrict businesses not established for any reason they choose.

I bought my land under those terms, most people do.

I don't know what encumbrances your property carries nor do I know about the property in question.

Odds are though, given big-ag's deep pockets and plethora of lawyers, the property in question fell under such an encumbrance....

[presence]

holy shit the facepalm is thick this morning

[presence]

..

[Ronin Truth]

Was it a unanimous choice?

[phill4paul]

holy shit the facepalm is thick this morning

So as your upwind neighbor, if I wish to start burning tires to get rid of them for a low cost, you would have no problem with that? My property, my business. Right?

[oyarde]

I guess I do not get it . Town of 400 with no unemployed , just exactly where did the company intend to get employees ?

[tod evans]

your rights come from your Creator and they are unlimited.

Everybody involved in this had their "rights" at issue...

Big-ag doesn't have "rights".

The farmers who struck deals with big-ag didn't have their rights infringed on any more than those who opposed the plant...

I can't turn my acreage into a nuclear waste disposal site, or even a bio-med disposal site but if I could by using your arguments I could profit handsomely...

[phill4paul]

The Nickerson plant would have helped area farmers, who mostly grow corn and soybeans, start up poultry operations and buy locally grown grain for feed, said Willow Holliback, who lives 40 miles away and heads an agriculture group that backed the proposal.

I wonder how she would like it in her backyard?

[presence]

So as your downwind neighbor, if I wish to start burning tires to get rid of them for a low cost, you would have no problem with that? My property, my business. Right?

The solution is not zoning but court action.

If some harm comes to me by your actions, I levy a claim upon you.


In so far as the outpouring of smoke by factories pollutes the air and damages the persons and property of others, it is an invasive act. It is equivalent to an act of vandalism and in a truly free society would have been punished after court action brought by the victims.

Murray Rothbard

[phill4paul]

The solution is not zoning but court action.

If some harm comes to me by your actions, I levy a claim upon you.

Perhaps the locals know that big-ag has huge pockets and high-rises filled with liaryers and are just protecting their self-interest? As I said, you also have to factor in the infrastructure, school expansion, a surge of out-of-locality immigrants (double the local population) and expanding services to accommodate them all at local property owner expense. Increased truck traffic and all that will bring to the infrastructure. Chicken processing and coop smells.
The people of the community simply do not want it. There will always be a community somewhere that will take Tyson. Just not theirs. And I agree with them. They all have a common stake in it.

[Anti Federalist]

Both sides have valid points here.

I'm leaning towards presence's solution: buy the property back with a deed restriction.

Local zoning efforts are usually much more likely to put the local business owner out of business or the small farmer out of work.

[presence]

Perhaps the locals know
[]
As I said, you also have to factor in the
[]
and all that
[]
smells



it is only through preference demonstrated in action that we can gauge what actors really value, and that to try to deduce values from mathematical formulas, without the evidence of action, is a hopeless cause. When people demonstrate their preferences

by exchanging

we can say that both parties felt that they would be better off trading goods than not. Since Pigou's solution involves imposing taxes and subsidies by fiat, without voluntary exchange, the numbers arrived at are mere guesswork.

https://mises.org/library/what-externality



they all have a common stake in it

then they should raise funds and offer the property to owner to sell the land or a covenant upon the land at profit

without demonstrated voluntary economic human action, you're just a SJW flailing for entitlements




Paul’s recommendation?


“Try a true free market. Get rid of the notion that well-managed capitalism with the Federal Reserve as the central economic planner is achievable. Forget the notion that progressive taxation is how you create wealth and distribute it fairly to the middle class. And please recognize that ownership of property and ourselves is the most basic human right conceivable.”


Rider said no issue will be off-limits at the new platform, from local zoning to global governance.

[]

The site, Voices of Liberty (http://www.voicesofliberty.com), is part of “The Freedom Movement: To Unite and Strengthen the Voices of Liberty – Make Your Voice Truly Matter.”

It asks Americans if they are tire of “unjustified wars, unconstitutional surveillance, extrajudicial drone assassinations, the continual weakening of the dollar, draconian drug laws, and the outright lies and deceptive doublespeak spouted by politicians with clandestine agendas.”


If so, Voices of Liberty is where they need to go, according to Tiffany Rider, managing editor of the new expansion

of the Ron Paul Channel.


http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/ron-paul-targets-deception-doublespeak/

[Danke]

holy shit the facepalm is thick this morning

Would you be against your neighbor building a nuclear power plant next to your house?

[phill4paul]

https://mises.org/library/what-externality




then they should raise funds and offer the property to owner to sell the land or a covenant upon the land at profit

without demonstrated voluntary economic human action, you're just a SJW flailing for entitlements

This SJW meme is getting old.

And tell me which property owner is it they need to pay off? It was a proposed plant. Nothing was bought or sold. "Regional economic development officials", read "tax-ticks", thought it'd be a swell idea. Until word got out. And people said "no thank you, we are doing fine here."

Your simple solution is to let anyone do anything and if there is a problem take it to court. The problem is that court is not free. Rural individuals don't have the deep pockets or corporate liaryers that can keep this kind of litigation wrapped up for decades. Would you be willing to let my tire smoke drive you inside your house and ruin your property values for decades for your belief that eventually, someday, you might, maybe, win in court?

[phill4paul]

Both sides have valid points here.

I'm leaning towards presence's solution: buy the property back with a deed restriction.

Local zoning efforts are usually much more likely to put the local business owner out of business or the small farmer out of work.

No property was bought or sold. Regional economic development tax-ticks thought it would be a swell idea for the community. The local community had a difference of opinion.

[tod evans]

Both sides have valid points here.

I'm leaning towards presence's solution: buy the property back with a deed restriction.

Local zoning efforts are usually much more likely to put the local business owner out of business or the small farmer out of work.

Never having seen the property in question.....................It could be a derelict piece of dirt in among profitable farms that members of the "Regional economic development group" bought in the hope of showing a profit off of by marketing it to big-ag....

I haven't read where there's some local property owner who is out anything other than speculation in this thread..

There might be some counties somewhere that don't restrict start-up businesses?

I don't live in one, and I don't know that the county in question is one...

[presence]

Your simple solution is to let anyone do anything and if there is a problem take it to court. The problem is that court is not free. Rural individuals don't have the deep pockets or corporate liaryers that can keep this kind of litigation wrapped up for decades. Would you be willing to let my tire smoke drive you inside your house and ruin your property values for decades for your belief that eventually, someday, you might, maybe, win in court?

If you have a legitimate case, with a likelihood to produce returns, you can generally contract with a lawyer pro bono provided you split proceeds.



A Pennsylvania jury handed down a $4.24 million verdict in a lawsuit centering on water contamination from negligent shale gas drilling in Dimock, PA, a tiny town that made international headlines for its flammable and toxic drinking water.

The defendant in the lawsuit, Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., had strenuously denied that it had caused any harm to the plaintiffs or their drinking water. In 2012, the company reached a settlement with roughly 40 other residents along Carter Road in Dimock, but the terms of that settlement were never made public and included a “non-disparagement” clause that prevents those who settled from speaking out about their experiences with Cabot.

The verdict, which was reported (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/436c625617a749a680e35348a0fb7c89/pennsylvania-families-win-424m-verdict-against-gas-driller) by the Associated Press, comes as long-awaited vindication for the Hubert and Ely families, who refused to settle in part because they wanted their voices heard, they said at a press conference when the trial began in Scranton on February 22.

The lawsuit stretched on for nearly seven years, and the plaintiffs were at one point forced to represent themselves in court after being unable to find legal counsel following the settlement of the vast majority of the plaintiffs.

The Huberts and the Elys still live on Carter Road, hauling their water by truck – a chore that became far more cumberson in the winter when hoses often froze and water tanks must be heated, Scott Ely, a former Cabot subcontractor turned whistleblower, had testified.

The jury directed Cabot to pay Nolen Scott Ely and Monica Marta-Ely each $1.3 million, and an additional $150,000 for their three children, and to pay Ray and Victoria Hubert each $720,000, plus an additional $50,000 for their child.

Because the lawsuit's scope had been narrowed dramatically before trial, the plaintiffs were not permitted to pursue Cabot for any harms done to their health, but only for the damage to property and the personal nuisance that the water contamination had caused.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/03/10/breaking-news-4-2-million-jury-verdict-dimock-pa-water-contamination-lawsuit-reported

[presence]

Would you be against your neighbor building a nuclear power plant next to your house?

Would you be against your neighbor building a nuclear power plant next to your house if they had a permit?

[phill4paul]

If you have a legitimate case, with a likelihood to produce returns, you can generally contract with a lawyer pro bono provided you split proceeds.


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are lawsuits regarding processing plants that have been going on for decades. Liaryers generally don't like to wrap themselves up for that length of time on the possibility of winning.
So, in the meantime, decades, you would be fine with letting me produce tire smoke that drives you inside your home and lowers your property value while raising your property taxes, you know, for the added infrastructure to bring me all these tires?

I also noticed that you did not address the fact that no one had bought or sold their land as you originally speculated. It was simply a proposal by some tax-ticks to solve a problem the town didn't have.

[Danke]

Would you be against your neighbor building a nuclear power plant next to your house if they had a permit?

Yes.

[presence]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are lawsuits regarding processing plants that have been going on for decades. Liaryers generally don't like to wrap themselves up for that length of time on the possibility of winning.

I'd posit if no lawyer was willing to contract to take the case on your claim of harm done on expected returns, then either you have no case or your willingness to split profits was too weak.


I also noticed that you did not address the fact that no one had bought or sold their land as you originally speculated. It was simply a proposal by some tax-ticks to solve a problem the town didn't have.

I'm confused. This was to be a government run meat processing plant?

I was under the impression there was a company looking to purchase land from a farmer at considerable profit for the farmer, but under the terms of the contract the buyer was requesting clarification on zoning from the state; zoning and land use contingency.

[phill4paul]

I'd posit if no lawyer was willing to contract to take the case on your claim of harm done on expected returns, then either you have no case or your willingness to split profits was too weak.

There is a reason these companies seek out relatively poor rural areas.



I was under the impression there was a company looking to purchase land from a farmer at considerable profit for the farmer, but under the terms of the contract the buyer was requesting clarification on zoning from the state; zoning and land use contingency.

Then please cite. No where in that article did I see this mention. From my reading the Regional Development tax ticks were coming up with a plan and news of this plan leaked before any formalization. Residents got wind of it and moved to shut it down.

[presence]

Yes.

Well then you would be shit out of luck if they got that permit and odds are the permit would allow for various permitted externalities for which you would otherwise be able to sue and seek compensation.

[presence]

Then please cite. No where in that article did I see this mention. From my reading the Regional Development tax ticks were coming up with a plan and news of this plan leaked before any formalization. Residents got wind of it and moved to shut it down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-costco-wholesale-chicken-idUSKCN0XF23K



Costco plans chicken plant in Nebraska
[]
Costco chose Dodge County, in eastern Nebraska, as a "preferred site" for the plant because of the area's quality workforce, available land, farmers willing to raise chickens and proximity to suppliers, among other factors, the Greater Fremont Development Council said.

[phill4paul]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-costco-wholesale-chicken-idUSKCN0XF23K

Key word: "Plans." Nowhere in that article does it show that property had already been purchased.

[angelatc]

I guess I do not get it . Town of 400 with no unemployed , just exactly where did the company intend to get employees ?

Mexico

[Brian4Liberty]

I guess I do not get it . Town of 400 with no unemployed , just exactly where did the company intend to get employees ?

Exactly.

[presence]

Key word: "Plans." Nowhere in that article does it show that property had already been purchased.

Well certainly I'm not going to finalize; close purchase land from someone if I know there may be some government edict telling me I can't use it.

Its the same with any other contingency contract.... I'll buy this contingent on you getting the subsurface oil tank removed, etc.

Costco wants the land. Costco wants to process chickens. Farmer wants to sell land for cash.

[angelatc]

Perhaps the locals know that big-ag has huge pockets and high-rises filled with liaryers and are just protecting their self-interest? As I said, you also have to factor in the infrastructure, school expansion, a surge of out-of-locality immigrants (double the local population) and expanding services to accommodate them all at local property owner expense. Increased truck traffic and all that will bring to the infrastructure. Chicken processing and coop smells.
The people of the community simply do not want it. There will always be a community somewhere that will take Tyson. Just not theirs. And I agree with them. They all have a common stake in it.

There are certainly arguments to be made from both sides, and this is where anarchists / libertarians / con-conservatives split ways. I believe, as Ron Paul does, that the right to create zoning laws is constitutionally delegated to the states, and by extension to the local municipalities.

Pragmatically speaking, if you live in an area where there are no zoning laws and you try to build a casino next to an elementary school, the town is going to band together and create zoning laws. That's just life.

Philosophically, I am probably opposed to it. Pragmatically, I am not going to protest on behalf of the casino because I don't want the casino there, even if I believe they have some deep philosophical right.

[phill4paul]

Well certainly I'm not going to finalize; close purchase land from someone if I know there may be some government edict telling me I can't use it.

Its the same with any other contingency contract.... I'll buy this contingent on you getting the subsurface oil tank removed, etc.

Costco wants the land. Costco wants to process chickens. Farmer wants to sell land for cash.

Which ones? Because I didn't see any farmers in the community offering opposition so they could cash out. Seems like the entire community was on on board and the entire board of directors, their representatives, conducted themselves as their community asked.

[presence]

I guess I do not get it . Town of 400 with no unemployed , just exactly where did the company intend to get employees ?

There are 37,000 that live in the county and 13% are qualified as impoverished.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/31053

[tod evans]

Well certainly I'm not going to finalize; close purchase land from someone if I know there may be some government edict telling me I can't use it.

Its the same with any other contingency contract.... I'll buy this contingent on you getting the subsurface oil tank removed, etc.

Costco wants the land. Costco wants to process chickens. Farmer wants to sell land for cash.

What restrictions are in place on your land?

I got several pages worth on rural Ozark land that I bought 15 years ago....Before that I owned land in two different towns that had even more restrictions that were conveyed from one buyer to the next....This process runs back several decades here in the sticks...

If land sales are different elsewhere I'm interested in learning.

[presence]

Which ones? Because I didn't see any farmers in the community offering opposition so they could cash out. Seems like the entire community was on on board and the entire board of directors, their representatives, conducted themselves as their community asked.

Well obviously someone owns the land that Costco is looking to acquire for a chicken processing plant in Nebraska.

That person... farmer, investor... whatever he is is being robbed of the value of his property because his buyer is being bullied by zoning and the violent arm of its enforcer.

[presence]

What restrictions are in place on your land?

I got several pages worth on rural Ozark land that I bought 15 years ago....Before that I owned land in two different towns that had even more restrictions that were conveyed from one buyer to the next....This process runs back several decades here in the sticks...

If land sales are different elsewhere I'm interested in learning.

There are many restrictions on my land...

some of which previous owners agreed to:

I have a contracted easement for a power line that crosses my land.

some of which previous owners never agreed to:

I have tens of millions of dollars of natural gas under my land that I'm not "zoned" to touch.

[erowe1]

"Being a Christian, I don't want Somalis in here,"

Does not compute.

[erowe1]

Would you be against your neighbor building a nuclear power plant next to your house?

There's a way to avoid that possibility. Buy that land. Then you get to decide what happens on it.

[phill4paul]

Well obviously someone owns the land that Costco is looking to acquire for a chicken processing plant in Nebraska.

That person... farmer, investor... whatever he is is being robbed of the value of his property because his buyer is being bullied by zoning and the violent arm of its enforcer.

Who? As I've said I have not heard of any that speak in favor Costco. Is it township property that Costco was looking to buy? If so the community certainly has a say in that.

[tod evans]

Well obviously someone owns the land that Costco is looking to acquire for a chicken processing plant in Nebraska.

That person... farmer, investor... whatever he is is being robbed of the value of his property because his buyer is being bullied by zoning and the violent arm of its enforcer.

I need proof that there weren't sales clauses in the deed when the land last changed hands that the board of aldermen had to review and approve new business start-ups before I'll buy into anybody being "hurt" let alone "robbed"...

There's not many people who will buy land, or banks that will finance it, unless such stipulations are spelled out explicitly in the contract for deed....

[phill4paul]

There's a way to avoid that possibility. Buy that land. Then you get to decide what happens on it.

I'd say billionaires, corporations and government are going to trump you every time in this endeavor.

[Danke]

There's a way to avoid that possibility. Buy that land. Then you get to decide what happens on it.

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1327369075476_936128.png

[FindLiberty]

lol, big-ag got cluckled by the little guy. (round 1)

[phill4paul]

There are certainly arguments to be made from both sides, and this is where anarchists / libertarians / con-conservatives split ways. I believe, as Ron Paul does, that the right to create zoning laws is constitutionally delegated to the states, and by extension to the local municipalities.

Pragmatically speaking, if you live in an area where there are no zoning laws and you try to build a casino next to an elementary school, the town is going to band together and create zoning laws. That's just life.

Philosophically, I am probably opposed to it. Pragmatically, I am not going to protest on behalf of the casino because I don't want the casino there, even if I believe they have some deep philosophical right.

I certainly understand. It's like the whole Sirachi incident. The plant had already existed. People moved into the vicinity and then complained about the smell. Or even on a local basis where people move downtown for the music, nightlife, etc., get tired of it, and want to enact sound ordinances.

In this case the company was moving into a community that thoroughly opposed it.

[presence]

Who? As I've said I have not heard of any that speak in favor Costco. Is it township property that Costco was looking to buy? If so the community certainly has a say in that.

I don't know of the specific parcel, but I understand it to read that Costco was looking to purchase a private parcel with zoning restrictions and was seeking a variance


Project backers declined to say whether they would continue to try to locate the plant on a parcel of land near Nickerson; the village board this month turned down a request for a needed zoning change

http://newschannelnebraska.com/state-news/costco-backers-tout-support-for-proposed-chicken-plant-near-fremont/

[tod evans]

There are many restrictions on my land...

some of which previous owners agreed to:

I have a contracted easement for a power line that crosses my land.

some of which previous owners never agreed to:

I have tens of millions of dollars of natural gas under my land that I'm not "zoned" to touch.

And you bought that land only by agreeing to honor the previous contracts and restrictions.

Why should people in rural Nebraska be subject to something different?

Does the farmer you allude to have some contractual agreement with his neighbors that would permit him to trump their usage contracts?

Or would you have new riders/easements and mineral right contracts negotiated every time land changed hands? When would these take effect, and who would compensate those who lost value?

Would the county continue to elect aldermen to deliberate such matters or would there be some other venue to settle grievances?

[phill4paul]

I don't know of the specific parcel, but I understand it to read that Costco was looking to purchase a private parcel with zoning restrictions and was seeking a variance

And again, I did not see one resident speak out in opposition saying "Hey, I might be the one that wins the lottery. Stop robbing me of the possibility. " The whole town pretty much said "No." In a town of 400 everybody knows everybody and everybody's business. They didn't want it.
I wouldn't want it either. Have you ever been within 10 miles of a processing plant? Or even 5 miles from a industrial coop? Or Christ, even driven behind a chicken hauler on a hot day? The community. did. not. want. them.

[presence]

And you bought that land only by agreeing to honor the previous contracts and restrictions.

So you find a bit of driftwood in the ocean, take it home and hang it on your wall.
I buy it from you and contractually promise I won't paint it red.
But before I bought it from you your neighbor said neither of us can paint the driftwood blue.


I'm of the opinion you have a claim against me if I paint it red, but if I paint it blue the third party can pound salt.

[tod evans]

And again, I did not see one resident speak out in opposition saying "Hey, I might be the one that wins the lottery. Stop robbing me of the possibility. " The whole town pretty much said "No." In a town of 400 everybody knows everybody and everybody's business. They didn't want it.
I wouldn't want it either. Have you ever been within 10 miles of a processing plant? Or even 5 miles from a industrial coop? Or Christ, even driven behind a chicken hauler on a hot day? The community. did. not. want. them.

Ride a scoot behind an offal truck in August in the Ozarks.......:eek:

[Brian4Liberty]

Would you be against your neighbor building a nuclear power plant next to your house?

No worries. You can sue them if it goes super-nova.

[tod evans]

So you find a bit of driftwood in the ocean, take it home and hang it on your wall.
I buy it from you and contractually promise I won't paint it red.
But before I bought it from you your neighbor said neither of us can paint the driftwood blue.


I'm of the opinion you have a claim against me if I paint it red, but if I paint it blue the third party can pound salt.

I don't have the money to fight a right of replevin suit or any other suit levied by neighbors or the county acting on their behalf...

But hey............You've got "10's of millions of dollars worth of natural gas" that is more than once removed from your contract..............

[phill4paul]

So you find a bit of driftwood in the ocean, take it home and hang it on your wall.
I buy it from you and contractually promise I won't paint it red.
But before I bought it from you your neighbor said neither of us can paint the driftwood blue.


I'm of the opinion you have a claim against me if I paint it red, but if I paint it blue the third party can pound salt.

You have multi-national corporation. You buy property next to mine and begin polluting air, water, etc.
You reap $100s of millions, possibly billions, of dollars in the years I am forced to spend my money and time because of loss of quality of life and property values and increased property taxes to support your infrastructure.
20 yrs. later I win a lawsuit. I get $2 million dollars, well, $1 million (because my pro-bono liaryer gets half). More than the cost of my property, and hey if my air still reeks, my water is unusable, etc. I can always move with my "fat" payout. :rolleyes:
Except I kinda liked it where I was before you were able to come in, my family had lived there for generations, hell, the house might have been built by my grandfather (though you can't put a dollar figure on that, so fuck me), fuck shit up, and still walk away with a pile of money making it well worth your time.
Sounds like a plan.

No.