L&T Publisher Earl Watt

I recently took advantage of the difficult opportunity of providing input on the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the Thresher wind project.

I am neither pro nor anti wind. I tend to be an all-of-the-above proponent when it comes to energy.

But I’ve also been educating myself on wind and its effects on the communities where it has been implemented, and it is a more complicated issue than just setting some rules and allowing towers to be installed.

The public is just discovering some of this information, and the public has a right to share with the Seward County Commission.

The problem is the method the commission and its administration has chosen is about the worst way to provide input.

My response to try to help the commissioners realize there are better ways to get public feedback is below:

“After reviewing the proposed CUP, and receiving feedback from the public, I do not believe a commission vote should be taken without an intentional effort to engage with the public beyond the burdensome system of expecting the public to follow the narrow input guidelines.

“According  to the American Planning Association, less than 5 percent of the public responds to requests for public input. Expecting to get a public consensus in this manner will never garner the results an advisory vote will. The last time Seward County had an advisory vote, the response was almost 50 percent, and no election since has even come close. People respond to advisory elections.

“By claiming only a few responded to your burdensome process when the response may be typical for such methods is disingenuous You are claiming low response with a process that gets low response.

“As representatives of the people, you have an obligation to reflect the will of the people, not outside corporations or a select few who may benefit financially at the expense of the quality of life for everyone else.

“If a company offered Seward County $400,000 per year to turn the Massoni Bridge into a toll bridge, and only some property owners will receive the proceeds, would that be a good deal?

“Basing your decision one the number of responses for or against without giving the public in general an advisory vote will continue to drive a wedge in the community while allowing a public vote removes any claims of impropriety.

“While administration may try to convince you that the input methods are typical, that does not replace the fact that the process omits the vast majority of the population based on research.

“You have to admit publicly that low responses were expected from the onset because the methods you chose have been proven to be limiting. Any expectation that thousands would have turned out is placing an unfair burden on the citizens of Seward County when data shows these methods do not garner many responses.

“By having a nonbinding advisory vote, you can dispel any concerns of limiting public access on such a consequential issue as wind farming in Seward County.”

Another key factor in why a public vote is necessary was the recent election. Only candidates who supported a public vote won.

While some will say the vote was solely based on recent ICE visits, then Democrats should have swept all three seats.

They didn’t. The only Republican to support a public vote won, meaning the election was about issues, and this election became a referendum on wanting a public vote for wind.

The people have spoken by selecting three new commissioners who all supported a vote while rejecting those who opposed it.

You want input? Let the people vote.