After a very deep dive researching these issues, I have come up with these proposed solutions to address the issues at the root of the Tipi Retreat Land Use Change issue.
My remark is on the right of way width. The travel potion of the road needs to accommodate the ability of two vehicles to pass by each other. Typical vehicles in Wyoming are pretty wide especially in rural area, so 12' on each side. Then an abutting area to support the road on each side usually a different grade of gravel , 6 foot. Then grade to a scale for drainage and width of swale, then grade back to natural ground. 12 x 2=24. 6 x 2= 12. 24+12=36 for the road alone, that leaves just 14÷2 or 7 foot on either side assuming 50 foot right of way. That is not enough if there are going to be lots of changes in elevation as is typical in Wyoming that will require culverts for drainage. That is why a 60 foot right of way is recommended for a well built road that will hold up.
Georgeeanne please for all our sakes go out and measure the public roads in Thermopolis and HSC, make a list and share with all readers the roads you found that meet those dimensions you came up with.
You’d make an excellent legal researcher on cases you don’t have a stake in. I think at the heart of this case are factors you didn’t address 1) a lack of transparency on the part of the Commissioners. It would go a long way in HSC to hold executive sessions only when it involves personnel issues that can be discussed publicly. Everything else is the public’s business. The sheets used for ranking individual projects should be discussed line item by line item publicly (no private discussions in executive sessions 2) those who have close relationships with anyone in a dispute should a) disclose that relationship publicly and b) recuse themselves immediately from any decision making on that project and refrain from discussing the matter publicly or privately with the remaining decision makers. Had Tom Ryan done so, it would have been transparent and gone a long way toward distancing himself from appearing to support an old friends position in the matter. 3) The deputizing of the neighbor to take photos of people on the Stevens property. There isn’t enough space for me to list the laws broken here. I know this occurred because I drive a very distinctive car. Not another like it in Montana or Wyoming. This man while I was on the Stevens property crept (only word to use to describe his actions) up to the property line and shot photos of me, my car, my license plate. He did not stop till I left. The only reason I did not pursue this legally is because Michele asked me not to. Have you seen the videos of what the neighbors have said and done to the Stevens? I have. They felt free to do that because “Tom Ryan supports them.” 4) Your entire treatise fails to address the key question of property rights in a county where legal transparency is missing. How many Ranchers and farmers and small business owners in HSC have to cross easements to reach their properties. How many have in file with HSC the approval of neighboring properties to be allowed to carry out their businesses? That’s one you should go back and research. 4) Will these requirements be applied to the HSC State Park because more than 1 million visitors are driving on roads to get to the park that don’t meet those width requirements? They are tearing the hell out of the roads in Thermopolis and surrounding areas. 5) you should have stayed away from the perjury charge. Phil Scheel spoke to business and property owners about removing the Tipis signs. Large period. To deny he did so wasn’t truthful and it speaks to a lack of transparency and truthfulness on the part of a public office holder. There is no justification for that. I was in the courtroom when he testified. His behavior and demeanor stunned me. That an elected official would comport himself in such a manner was shocking. 5) You want to portray yourself as an unbiased individual with no dog in this fight. Your husband lost this election probably due to how he handled himself regarding this case. You have your own political ambitions. You have an investment in this. One can’t unring a bell. Tom Ryan was panicked enough to get Jack Baird to run because without a yes man to back him up (your husband filled that role) Mr Ryan was looking at not being able to call the shots in HSC. Go look at the videos of the neighbors attacking the Stevens. This is an ugly ugly case with strings being pulled from the seat of power in HSC. The people voted to start removing those involved in this. Your insertion in this attempting “address the issues” at this late date in the game appears to be an appeal to elect Jack Baird more than clear the smoke.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Mary. I can tell you are very passionate about this. I will address the points you laid out.
Your Point #1: Wyoming State Statute 16-4-405 provides guidance about when and for what purpose a public board can go into executive session. Article (iii) reads "On matters concerning litigation to which the governing body is a party or proposed litigation to which the governing body may be a party:" Of course, personnel issues are also listed, as well as several other reasons they can enter executive session.
Your Point #2: There is no evidence that Tom Ryan is close personal friends with anyone involved in this case, as I already said. I don't know what source of information you are using to justify this personal attack against his character. As far as I can tell, there is no reason that Tom would need to recuse himself in this case. I would also point out that The Stevens' lobbied hard to get Paul Galovich elected, basically putting him forward as their "inside man". He has a lot of public and private connections to that family, and he does not recuse himself when they take a vote dealing with these matters, so there is no reason for voters to believe that Bob Aguiar would either, who has also been put forward as the Stevens' hand-picked candidate.
Your Point #3: "deputizing the neighbors"-- I did look into this, I just ran out of room in the article to get into it. On their website: "SaveTheTipi.com", in the article titled "Further Harassment"- the Stevens' do make this claim, but the "proof" that they use to back up this claim is a linked document that shows that Jim and Sherry Barber were added to the Disclosure on the Defendent's First Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure- so basically- they were added to the list of potential witnesses that could be called up to testify to make some of the County's points. There is no evidence anywhere that the Sheriff's office deputized them.
Your Point #4: If a rancher or businessman has to cross someone else's property, the standard process is to gain an easement. Most of these easements are dealt with between neighbors and never get the county involved. The reason the county got involved here is because they needed to change the allowed land use on their property, which anyone else who is carrying out business on land that is zoned improperly would also have to do. If someone else were to be in the same situation- where they wanted to start a business on land previously zoned residential or agricultural, they would also be required to bring their road up to these standards for public access, and to work out the easement increases with their neighbors. This is exactly what happened a few years ago to Matt and Linda Hughes when they wanted to start the BarN Supper Club- they would have had to drive across an easement, so would have needed to increase the width and stability of the road, and the neighbor wouldn't sign off to increase the alotted easement usage- so they weren't allowed the land use change.
Your Second Point #4: The State Park is not required to meet the County's road standards, as they are not under the County's jurisdiction. I do feel that they should be meeting these minimums, but they aren't required to, as they are under the State's jurisdiction.
Your Point #5: Yes- Phil has openly admitted to speaking to people about the Tipi signs. He did not testify that he didn't, he testified that he did not DEMAND that they take them down, as that is a very different thing.
Your second Point #5: Yes, I am biased, as I said several times in the article.
I have not seen videos of the Stevens' being attacked by their neighbors. I have largely been off of Facebook for the past several years, and that is where I assume most of that lies. There was more than enough material from their website for me to have the article just from that. If there are specific videos that you would like me to watch- please let me know the date that they were posted- and I will find them.
I am trying here to just provide the other side of the story, so that people can make an informed choice after hearing from all involved. I am belatedly trying to provide context and facts to a situation that for too long has been dominated by anger and misleading half truths. I am not a perfect person, nor is anyone else involved here. We are all imperfect people in an imperfect world, just trying to do the best we can.
My remark is on the right of way width. The travel potion of the road needs to accommodate the ability of two vehicles to pass by each other. Typical vehicles in Wyoming are pretty wide especially in rural area, so 12' on each side. Then an abutting area to support the road on each side usually a different grade of gravel , 6 foot. Then grade to a scale for drainage and width of swale, then grade back to natural ground. 12 x 2=24. 6 x 2= 12. 24+12=36 for the road alone, that leaves just 14÷2 or 7 foot on either side assuming 50 foot right of way. That is not enough if there are going to be lots of changes in elevation as is typical in Wyoming that will require culverts for drainage. That is why a 60 foot right of way is recommended for a well built road that will hold up.
Georgeeanne please for all our sakes go out and measure the public roads in Thermopolis and HSC, make a list and share with all readers the roads you found that meet those dimensions you came up with.
You’d make an excellent legal researcher on cases you don’t have a stake in. I think at the heart of this case are factors you didn’t address 1) a lack of transparency on the part of the Commissioners. It would go a long way in HSC to hold executive sessions only when it involves personnel issues that can be discussed publicly. Everything else is the public’s business. The sheets used for ranking individual projects should be discussed line item by line item publicly (no private discussions in executive sessions 2) those who have close relationships with anyone in a dispute should a) disclose that relationship publicly and b) recuse themselves immediately from any decision making on that project and refrain from discussing the matter publicly or privately with the remaining decision makers. Had Tom Ryan done so, it would have been transparent and gone a long way toward distancing himself from appearing to support an old friends position in the matter. 3) The deputizing of the neighbor to take photos of people on the Stevens property. There isn’t enough space for me to list the laws broken here. I know this occurred because I drive a very distinctive car. Not another like it in Montana or Wyoming. This man while I was on the Stevens property crept (only word to use to describe his actions) up to the property line and shot photos of me, my car, my license plate. He did not stop till I left. The only reason I did not pursue this legally is because Michele asked me not to. Have you seen the videos of what the neighbors have said and done to the Stevens? I have. They felt free to do that because “Tom Ryan supports them.” 4) Your entire treatise fails to address the key question of property rights in a county where legal transparency is missing. How many Ranchers and farmers and small business owners in HSC have to cross easements to reach their properties. How many have in file with HSC the approval of neighboring properties to be allowed to carry out their businesses? That’s one you should go back and research. 4) Will these requirements be applied to the HSC State Park because more than 1 million visitors are driving on roads to get to the park that don’t meet those width requirements? They are tearing the hell out of the roads in Thermopolis and surrounding areas. 5) you should have stayed away from the perjury charge. Phil Scheel spoke to business and property owners about removing the Tipis signs. Large period. To deny he did so wasn’t truthful and it speaks to a lack of transparency and truthfulness on the part of a public office holder. There is no justification for that. I was in the courtroom when he testified. His behavior and demeanor stunned me. That an elected official would comport himself in such a manner was shocking. 5) You want to portray yourself as an unbiased individual with no dog in this fight. Your husband lost this election probably due to how he handled himself regarding this case. You have your own political ambitions. You have an investment in this. One can’t unring a bell. Tom Ryan was panicked enough to get Jack Baird to run because without a yes man to back him up (your husband filled that role) Mr Ryan was looking at not being able to call the shots in HSC. Go look at the videos of the neighbors attacking the Stevens. This is an ugly ugly case with strings being pulled from the seat of power in HSC. The people voted to start removing those involved in this. Your insertion in this attempting “address the issues” at this late date in the game appears to be an appeal to elect Jack Baird more than clear the smoke.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Mary. I can tell you are very passionate about this. I will address the points you laid out.
Your Point #1: Wyoming State Statute 16-4-405 provides guidance about when and for what purpose a public board can go into executive session. Article (iii) reads "On matters concerning litigation to which the governing body is a party or proposed litigation to which the governing body may be a party:" Of course, personnel issues are also listed, as well as several other reasons they can enter executive session.
Your Point #2: There is no evidence that Tom Ryan is close personal friends with anyone involved in this case, as I already said. I don't know what source of information you are using to justify this personal attack against his character. As far as I can tell, there is no reason that Tom would need to recuse himself in this case. I would also point out that The Stevens' lobbied hard to get Paul Galovich elected, basically putting him forward as their "inside man". He has a lot of public and private connections to that family, and he does not recuse himself when they take a vote dealing with these matters, so there is no reason for voters to believe that Bob Aguiar would either, who has also been put forward as the Stevens' hand-picked candidate.
Your Point #3: "deputizing the neighbors"-- I did look into this, I just ran out of room in the article to get into it. On their website: "SaveTheTipi.com", in the article titled "Further Harassment"- the Stevens' do make this claim, but the "proof" that they use to back up this claim is a linked document that shows that Jim and Sherry Barber were added to the Disclosure on the Defendent's First Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure- so basically- they were added to the list of potential witnesses that could be called up to testify to make some of the County's points. There is no evidence anywhere that the Sheriff's office deputized them.
Your Point #4: If a rancher or businessman has to cross someone else's property, the standard process is to gain an easement. Most of these easements are dealt with between neighbors and never get the county involved. The reason the county got involved here is because they needed to change the allowed land use on their property, which anyone else who is carrying out business on land that is zoned improperly would also have to do. If someone else were to be in the same situation- where they wanted to start a business on land previously zoned residential or agricultural, they would also be required to bring their road up to these standards for public access, and to work out the easement increases with their neighbors. This is exactly what happened a few years ago to Matt and Linda Hughes when they wanted to start the BarN Supper Club- they would have had to drive across an easement, so would have needed to increase the width and stability of the road, and the neighbor wouldn't sign off to increase the alotted easement usage- so they weren't allowed the land use change.
Your Second Point #4: The State Park is not required to meet the County's road standards, as they are not under the County's jurisdiction. I do feel that they should be meeting these minimums, but they aren't required to, as they are under the State's jurisdiction.
Your Point #5: Yes- Phil has openly admitted to speaking to people about the Tipi signs. He did not testify that he didn't, he testified that he did not DEMAND that they take them down, as that is a very different thing.
Your second Point #5: Yes, I am biased, as I said several times in the article.
I have not seen videos of the Stevens' being attacked by their neighbors. I have largely been off of Facebook for the past several years, and that is where I assume most of that lies. There was more than enough material from their website for me to have the article just from that. If there are specific videos that you would like me to watch- please let me know the date that they were posted- and I will find them.
I am trying here to just provide the other side of the story, so that people can make an informed choice after hearing from all involved. I am belatedly trying to provide context and facts to a situation that for too long has been dominated by anger and misleading half truths. I am not a perfect person, nor is anyone else involved here. We are all imperfect people in an imperfect world, just trying to do the best we can.