Wisconsin Reports: The Fiefdom of Fifield
Having disbanded a few years back due to lack of interest on the part of Price County and surrounding municipalities and the subsequent reduction in the amount of grant monies that would have been received, the planning committee was revived. Despite a statement made by Doug Noetzel, town chairman, regarding past committee members being requested to serve; again certain individuals were ominously omitted despite requests to again serve.
Back in July 2009 the board approved an ordinance enabling the Comprehensive Planning Commission. This ordinance among other things, stated the commission would abide by open meetings laws and is certainly subject to existing statutes; or are they?
In the property tax notices that went out in December of 2009 there was a slip of paper indicating that a hearing would be held on the plan January 21st 2010, and that the plan would be available at the town hall and the Park Falls public library. State statute § 66.1001 regulates the actions necessary for a municipality, if the municipality enters into land use planning, two of which are to foster public participation and respond to concerns of citizens. This statute requires 30 day posting of the plan to various state agencies, surrounding municipalities and the aforementioned locations. The responsibility to see this is done lies with commission chair Leona DeRemer, who is also a town board supervisor. However with less than two weeks before the January 21st hearing, no copies of the plan were available.
Enter the belligerent claimant in person, a local farmer, one of the few remaining, who filed Notice and Complaint regarding the failure to present the plan for public viewing. Then 10 days prior to the hearing were people able to view the plan. The plan was a boilerplate product of the Northwest Regional Planning Commission; a quasi-governmental agency paid $20,000 to process the document.
Now this local farmer had requested from the commission information regarding the meaning of “Best Management Practices” as applied to Agriculture, as stated in the outline of the plan. Only a vague response was received which failed to define the extent of requirements of “Best Management Practices”.
Despite three official notices for the request, further information was not forthcoming.
The January 21st hearing quickly evolved into a shouting match on the part of Ed Gibeaut in response to concerns of the Lobermeiers. Gibeaut insisted that the plan was mandated by the state, however a request for information to prove that claim has never been responded to. Questions regarding the definition of words and phrases used in the plan led to more attacks on those asking the questions than legitimate responses.
Of particular interest was the response to the farmer’s concerns over the conversion of all land designated Ag 1 to Rural Residential, as well as the statements in the plan, as there was no designated prime agricultural land being farmed and the growing season was too short.
A simple question asking for a definition of the word “premises” brought complete silence, giving a clear indication that the commission lacked the skill levels necessary to comprehend the plan and its application.
Interestingly enough, the commission met more than a dozen times without posting an agenda in sufficient time prior to the meetings, and took actions in the meetings not indicated on the agendas. Recently when a quorum failed to present the three present discussed the plan anyway.
An open records request to the clerk for the oaths of office for the commission members garnered a reply that oaths weren’t required, and then a week later the oaths were discovered in another file.
Open record requests for the minutes of the January 21st hearing have gone unanswered; the buck was passed to William Ave’ lallemant, Commission Secretary, and then to Leona DeRemer who had indicated minutes were not necessary as the commission had the jist of what was said; after all why let rules get in the way when something needs to be done.
A few changes were made after the hearing but the fact that those present were opposed to the plan just wasn’t sinking in. In comes the survey, something usually done at the outset of the process had been opposed by the commission. Worded to produce the results wanted as indicated by the question “Long range planning is needed to guide growth and preserve the quality of life in Fifield Township” agree or, disagree or, don’t know. With the majority of respondents agreeing the commission now touts itself as the “Long Range Planning Commission”, a title not established in the ordinance: # 89. As less than 50% of those given the surveys actually responded, representing only a minority of those who would be affected, a majority decision could not be legitimately rendered.
Another hearing September 16th was initiated by questioning the legality of the hearing due to again failing to provide copies to the governmental districts within the township and surrounding municipalities, as required. The town chairman decided to take the concerns under consideration but went forward with the hearing despite it being void ab initio. The chair then proceeded to spend the entire time going over errors and omissions in the plan which made one wonder what the unlawfully created “Commission” had been spending its time on.
Written testimony was given by two individuals:
- Tom Keisgen who raised the question regarding the requirement in ordinance #89 that the plan be completed and in place by January 1st 2010 and,
Note: Ordinance #89 was never posted on the Fifield site. It is available only in the hard copy.
- What action would be taken?
- The farmer also presented concerns regarding compliance with state and federal constitutions.
The board decided to send the written comments to the town’s attorney and indicated this would cause an expense of $2000 dollars as if it was the fault of the people submitting the testimony and not, their own, for failing the requirements of Screws v. US.
The minutes of the October 4th 2010, Monday nights “Commission” meeting indicates an approval of the minutes from the prior meeting that lacked a quorum, and the passage of the change to remove reference to 66.1001 from the ordinance and plan; an obvious attempt to avoid their responsibilities under the law.
Despite what Sally Putnam stated that only the statutes cited apply, it just doesn’t work that way; hence the term “Four Corners Doctrine”.
To round this out even further Jim Robb, Commission member and county board member chair of the county zoning committee has been working with the administrative head of zoning upon proposals received from Kathleen Kascewicz, Commission member to have the conditional use permit exclusion removed from properties designated Ag1. This would require farmers to request permits for any repairs, construction, or changing plastic on a greenhouse or even erecting fence would require a permit.
With the commission poised to take control of zoning in the township, despite Sally Putnam’s claim that the plan wasn’t zoning even though the word appears 46 times in the document, it’s a safe assumption that the commission is looking to consolidate its powerbase and utilize it to remove farmers for the benefit of developers as future development will require 50% open space and a mandated conservation easement. This would further reducing land values in an already depressed economy.
Information regarding the Town of Fifield, Comp Plan, and related documents can be sourced by clicking the first link.
I am the belligerent claimant in person (farmer), and this fight is for my own survival on the land against ignorance, arrogance, and an agenda of retired elitists. Below is the testimony I presented in the September 21st hearing:
_________________________________________________
Town of Fifield.
Town of Fifield Comprehensive Planning Commission
Re; Hearing testimony for Sept 16th 2010
_________________________________
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
__________________________________
Notice of special appearance and not general by Paul M. Griepentrog at this hearing and subsequent board meeting of 16 September 2010.
Whereas the activities of the commission over the course of the last ten months have evidenced their only talent being argumentum ad hominum in their response to my concerns and the concerns of others. Having failed to respond to my request at the hearing of January 21st to proof their claim regarding a state mandate, the definition of words within the plan and my concerns regarding the requirements invoked by Best Management Practices in regards to agriculture. Responses have been vague or nonexistent which leaves me concerned regarding how to comply with the mandates of the plan, and implicates the commission member’s lack of good faith in regards to addressing public concerns and fostering public participation. SCOTUS has rendered stare decisis regarding silence as equating with fraud.
Furthermore the members of the board and the commission have taken oaths to abide by the constitutions of the State and National governments. How then does this commission intend through the implementation of the plan which may result in retroactively divest, diminish, and impair property rights when Article 1, Section 14 of the Wisconsin Constitution states all lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited? Will compensation be made for these takings as required under the U.S. Constitution?
Will the enforcement of the plan be subject to interpretation and raise the issue of selective prosecution? How will enforcement be achieved in light of the Void for Vagueness Doctrine and Doctrine of Retroactivity/Prospectivity without clear established guidelines for the public to discern?
Disregard for administerial procedure in the lack of proper posting of meeting agendas and actions taken outside the agenda certainly leaves the public in the dark and cannot be viewed as fostering public participation. Refusal of open record request for the minutes of the January 21st hearing due to lack of existence further bears this out.
How will information regarding compliance be obtained in light of the SCOTUS decision in Camara v Municipal Court that entry onto property by public officials without warrant and complaint is unconstitutional?
How does the conversion of land designated as Ag 1 to rural residential and the subsequent loss of exclusionary rights stand in light of the States Freedom to Farm Act?
These are a few of my concerns regarding the plan and its implementation.
_______________________________________________
Despite complaints being filed with the Price County District Attorney regarding multiple violations of open records/open meetings laws, nothing is being done. This raises the question as to whether he is shielding these people from prosecution or committing abuse of discretion. Only time will tell.
If you know of a farm for sale outside Wisconsin let me know.
_______________________________________________________
prep. Latin phrase meaning “from the start”; literal meaning being something done ‘from scratch’. In legal parlance it stands from: 1.) if any legal agreement is void ab initio then it stands null and void from the very beginning of its intended existence and not just from the instant its declared as void. 2.) if a person enters onto someone’s private property (real estate) by authority of law but later maltreats that authority then he becomes a trespasser ab initio.
Article 1 sect. 14 Wisconsin Constitution
SECTION 14. All lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited. Leases and grants of agricultural land for a longer term than fifteen years in which rent or service of any kind shall be reserved, and all fines and like restraints upon alienation reserved in any grant of land, hereafter made, are declared to be void.
ppjg.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/wisconsin-reports-the-fiefdom-of-fifield/