Posted on 08/21/2003 3:41:37 PM PDT by chance33_98
Judge: State Can't Prevent Wind Power Test Tower
POSTED: 4:55 p.m. EDT August 21, 2003 UPDATED: 5:01 p.m. EDT August 21, 2003
BOSTON -- A federal judge in Boston has ruled against an effort to halt a proposed offshore wind farm on Nantucket Sound that proponents say could supply nearly three-quarters of the electricity used on Cape Cod and the Islands.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro said the state had no authority to stop the construction of a test tower currently operating in the sound. Wind farm opponents said they will appeal Tauro's decision.
Developer Cape Wind Associates wants to erect 130 towers about five miles off Cape Cod. Spokesman Mark Rodgers hopes the decision will set a precedent for permitting of the entire project.
Opponents say the wind farm would damage wildlife, destroy views and harm the fishing and boating industries. They also say there are no firm guidelines on how and where offshore wind towers can be built.
My dad was going to put some on his land (of course they wouldn't be huge, but probably taller than trees), I didn't think anything of it and considered doing it myself, but I didn't realize there are people that don't like them. I'm surprized by that, like I said I think they look cool. Must be a rural mechanical thing for us. A lot of us rural people like mechanical structures and think they're elegant. We like old windmills, watermills, big barns, silos, stuff like that.
By the way, what are you considering developed land? The wind farm I saw on TV looked like in was in rural land. The one in Pennsyvania would be rural also. Why would they have to put a wind farm in a town when electric power can be transferred by wire?
So you oppose them more because they take up acreage, and not because of the way they look. If you have one row, why not have 30 rows of them? I assume there are not going to be homes between them. So if you're going to spoil the horizon (according to the opponents) with one, why not put a bunch of them there since the damage (according to opponents) is already done? Also whose land is being used, is the government confiscating property for these? If so you have a point. But if the land is being developed by private entities, then it's their land and they should be able to with it as they please.
I don't have a problem with land development. I know that liberals in hollywood like to demonize those that develop land, but without developed land we wouldn't have places to live or places to work and without those two things America would have no ability to defend herself from the evil of the world. It takes an economy to protect us and provide for us.
That's exactly right. I don't have any problem with people doing whatever they want with their land. The only caveat is that someone who wants to develop a rural farm into, say, densely packed townhouses should have to contribute money to the roads, schools, and public services needed to serve the community.
A farmer who wants to convert his land from wheat to windmills should be perfectly able to do so (and that might even be a good deal for some farmers if we had a better grid).
That said, these windmill farms are ugly, and most of them are built on public land. People who would scream about having any other structure built on public lands think these are fine. They just don't live near any.
It's the same thing as having all of the East Coast environmentalists making land decisions for the West. The results are idiocy.
Maybe if they could put a windmill on the top of every high rise in NYC, we'd get more accurate information about how well they work. ;-)
Why? The things that make our country strong is the entreprenuerial spirit and freedom. A land developer provides jobs and living quarters to the citizens of an area, why should that land developer then have to pay a higher rate of taxes for social programs that are anti-growth? I believe in flat taxes and I believe in free enterprise. Those that are more productive should not be punished for that higher production, they should only pay the same rate as everyone else.
A farmer who wants to convert his land from wheat to windmills should be perfectly able to do so (and that might even be a good deal for some farmers if we had a better grid). That said, these windmill farms are ugly, and most of them are built on public land. People who would scream about having any other structure built on public lands think these are fine. They just don't live near any. It's the same thing as having all of the East Coast environmentalists making land decisions for the West. The results are idiocy.
All I can say is move if you think they're ugly. I don't think you have the right to tell your neighbor what he can and can't do with his property. If you're living around people that like windmills and you don't, then move. It's not your land, it's theirs.
Maybe if they could put a windmill on the top of every high rise in NYC, we'd get more accurate information about how well they work. ;-)
It would destabilize the buildings, it's a matter of leverage.
Land developers don't provide anything to the citizens of an area. The citizens already have their homes and jobs. They are bringing in new people to clog the roads, schools, utilities, etc. It's for their profit, not for the benefit of the current citizens.
They should pay for the needed infrastructure improvements (and fine if they collect it from the new residents or businesses) instead of expecting the current residents to pay more money for development they would just as soon not have.
And sure - I have no problem with people putting windmills on their own land. I just think it's silly for environmentalists to say that windmill farms on public property aren't "development".
A land developer develops land to make money. In the process of developing that land money is spent on labor and materials for it's construction. Once developed, people are needed for labor and upkeep thereby providing more jobs. The profits made are spent thereby provided others with income. This is what economics is all about. What are you, a Naderite? All business is bad? Do you think that there should be no progress? Do you think that we should halt technological improvemnents so as to not disrupt those that already have jobs? We should all be Amish?
They should pay for the needed infrastructure improvements (and fine if they collect it from the new residents or businesses) instead of expecting the current residents to pay more money for development they would just as soon not have.
No, they are providing jobs and oncome that helps everyone. Improvements should be made through flat taxations since everyone is benefitting.
And sure - I have no problem with people putting windmills on their own land. I just think it's silly for environmentalists to say that windmill farms on public property aren't "development".
It's the environmentalists that are against the windmills in Pennsylvania.
Exactly. The land developer is making money for him or herself. It does not benefit the community. It's extremely rare that the raw materials or labor come from the community where the construction is taking place.
It is always true that the burden of extra infrastructure affects the community where the construction is taking place. And the developer should pay more for his or her choice than the community should pay for having the choice foisted on them.
And, no, I am not a Naderite or against development. I just think developers in some areas have been getting too many free rides. Yes, that's the fault of the local gov't, not the developers.
I didn't know that it was the environmentalists who were against the PA windmills. This is the first time I have ever agreed with environmentalists.
I don't think you understand how an economy works. When a land developer spends money to develop land, that is an investment to make profits. Profits are what drives an economy and keeps us employed and protected. If businesses didn't make profits, they would all go out of business and we would have no jobs and be subject to genocide and slavery from a foreign country. Whether a land developer spends his money locally or across the nation doesn't matter, the business is what drives the economy and keeps the money flowing. Money flows between businesses and individuals. The more money that flows, the more opportunities there are for individuals to make money. I disagree with your claim that all land developers use labor from outside the community. Everyone I know that I live near works locally on developed land (besides farmers). It wouldn't make sense to take a plane to work everyday. I don't know anyone that travels more than a few miles to work on a daily basis.
It is always true that the burden of extra infrastructure affects the community where the construction is taking place. And the developer should pay more for his or her choice than the community should pay for having the choice foisted on them.
I disagree. I think businesses and entreprenuers are the lifeblood of our innovation, and therefore our jobs and our security. They are what make America great, not the do-nothings like Ralph Nader. They are the producers and are very valuable to a community. They shouldn't be punished for being productive.
And, no, I am not a Naderite or against development.
You are very much against development. In all your posts you say that there should not be development and if there is then developers should be punished.
I just think developers in some areas have been getting too many free rides. Yes, that's the fault of the local gov't, not the developers.
I think that their ride isn't free enough. We should encourage job creation, not punish the productive class.
I didn't know that it was the environmentalists who were against the PA windmills. This is the first time I have ever agreed with environmentalists.
Because you are anti-devlopment. By your posts I can see that you are almost always in agreement with environmentalists.
I have never said that. I think you probably do not live in an area where the roads are clogged far beyond their capacity, schools are operating out of trailers, and there aren't enough gov't services like police, trash capacity, public transportation, parks, etc. to handle the number of households.
I do know that eventually the rising tax base will allow the additional services to be developed, but I do favor making developers pay some of the start-up costs. That's part of the cost of doing business.
It does catch up to the developers eventually. Houses don't sell so fast when people realize that they're buying an hour or more commute in stop-and-go traffic, a classroom of 30 students in a trailer for the kids, and of course they can't play soccer because there aren't any soccer fields.
Yes, in every post you have said that developers should be punished for causing more economic activity.
I think you probably do not live in an area where the roads are clogged far beyond their capacity, schools are operating out of trailers, and there aren't enough gov't services like police, trash capacity, public transportation, parks, etc. to handle the number of households.
Without businesses to provide jobs, where do you think the money will come from to pay for this stuff. Businesses and productive individuals pay most of the taxes already. A growing percentage of Americans pay no taxes. Tax everyone at a flat rate and there will be money for your precious nanny government.
I do know that eventually the rising tax base will allow the additional services to be developed, but I do favor making developers pay some of the start-up costs. That's part of the cost of doing business.
They do pay the bills because they are the ones that provide jobs. Without development, you have no jobs and without jobs, you have no tax revenue.
It does catch up to the developers eventually. Houses don't sell so fast when people realize that they're buying an hour or more commute in stop-and-go traffic, a classroom of 30 students in a trailer for the kids, and of course they can't play soccer because there aren't any soccer fields.
Economic activity is a good thing. When one area of the country becomes saturated with jobs, developers develop where an area isn't saturated with jobs. Jobs are a good thing, believe it or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.