"I think telling people what is acceptable on their private property is the issue here. It is not the landowners legal responsibility to provide a scenic view at great expense to himself." If ANYTHING becomes a big enough nuisance, be it visual or otherwise, to impact a significant number of people, they can vote to over-rule his "property right". This is settled law, and has been for quite a long time. Wind farms are ugly as hell. Put'em offshore, make hydrogen, and pipeline it onshore.
'If ANYTHING becomes a big enough nuisance, be it visual or otherwise, to impact a significant number of people, they can vote to over-rule his "property right". This is settled law, and has been for quite a long time. '
Can you provide a source for that. I don't think its true. If true, the size of the nuisance and the number of people impacted would definitely figure in to the outcome of any litigation. In both cases, it would be small. The property likely has very few adjacent landowners. The impact of equipment in the distance would be negligible as well. Environmental activists making their complaints from hundreds of miles away would not figure in at all.
We have windmills here in WV. We also have a handful of really vocal opponents to them. Most of these opponents live hundreds of miles away and have never actually seen them. Other than these few opponents, most people think they look pretty cool.
