4 ms·

It's easy to point the finger and call people assholes when its not your home value that is being impacted by the project. For better or worse, most people don

It's easy to point the finger and call people assholes when its not your home value that is being impacted by the project. For better or worse, most people don't move to places like cape cod so they can stare at wind turbines all day. Placing them there will obviously negatively impact home prices where they are dominant on the horizon. That's not to say that it's a bad idea to put them there, and the overall public good may make it worth it, but to brush off the concerns of the actual residents (who I would guess is not you) as stupid is not very productive.

jessaustin 10y ago
They're not assholes because they live/vacation on the shore, they're assholes because they've arranged for a different set of rules to apply to them. Offshore petroleum extraction equipment has been a common sight offshore in other regions of USA for decades. That equipment is much uglier, and has more disturbing associated traffic, than wind generators. I don't own any shoreline property, but if I claimed some right to regulate what can be done in sight of the property I do own, the only result would be well-deserved derision.
- tcoppi 10y ago
  I don't think anyone in that situation is claiming a right(which would indeed be preposterous), just an interest in using their political power to deny, degrade, and disrupt the process of getting these sorts of projects approved if they are within sight of shore. They are perfectly within their rights to do that, and it is and will have a strong effect on the ability of these projects to get both funds and regulatory approval, which is why I suggested that they should be looking at sights not visible from land, of which there are plenty suitable locations.
  - karma_vaccum123 10y ago
    Cheaper and easier to just pass marine development laws that categorically invalidate their claims. If people want to move, let them. No one will. edit: for some reason I cannot respond to the child of this comment, but I recommend reading this if you think Bay Area NIMBYism is omnipotent: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-plan-20160514-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-pla... State and Federal governments override local concerns all the time.
    - tcoppi 10y ago
      That obviously won't work, since laws are subject to the whims of elected officials and constituents that can change them through NIMBY lobbying, and they need to get past those NIMBYs in the first place. See: SF Bay Area development restrictions.
- vacri 10y ago
  A simple counter to these people is this: Show me on your property deed where it says you have the right to uninterrupted views. Property deeds give you the right to a piece of land, that's it.
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Their home prices aren't impacted by this. Their asset is already rare enough that it is insulated from minor issues like this. I mean, who is going to come out to an area like this and not bother buying because they see a turbine? No one. If only one home was impacted, I could see that home suffering...but there is no choice here. You will either see turbines or you find a house fifty miles away. The homes fifty miles away will have more disadvantages than advantages. Santa Barbara has some of the most expensive coastal real estate in the US and they have line-of-site of numerous oil platforms. Santa Cruz beachfront homes have tripled in value since I moved to the Bay Area in 1994 even though they have line-of-site to a PGE plant with huge smokestacks. etc etc Location trumps minor annoyances.
jsight 10y ago
The article above implied that they would be about 5 miles away. I don't see that impacting home values.
hx87 10y ago
Why the assumption that a view with wind turbines would /negatively/ impact a property's value? If there are enough people who like wind turbines, the property value will stay put and perhaps increase.

jessaustin 10y ago

They're not assholes because they live/vacation on the shore, they're assholes because they've arranged for a different set of rules to apply to them. Offshore petroleum extraction equipment has been a common sight offshore in other regions of USA for decades. That equipment is much uglier, and has more disturbing associated traffic, than wind generators. I don't own any shoreline property, but if I claimed some right to regulate what can be done in sight of the property I do own, the only result would be well-deserved derision.

tcoppi 10y ago
I don't think anyone in that situation is claiming a right(which would indeed be preposterous), just an interest in using their political power to deny, degrade, and disrupt the process of getting these sorts of projects approved if they are within sight of shore. They are perfectly within their rights to do that, and it is and will have a strong effect on the ability of these projects to get both funds and regulatory approval, which is why I suggested that they should be looking at sights not visible from land, of which there are plenty suitable locations.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Cheaper and easier to just pass marine development laws that categorically invalidate their claims. If people want to move, let them. No one will. edit: for some reason I cannot respond to the child of this comment, but I recommend reading this if you think Bay Area NIMBYism is omnipotent: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-plan-20160514-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-pla... State and Federal governments override local concerns all the time.
  - tcoppi 10y ago
    That obviously won't work, since laws are subject to the whims of elected officials and constituents that can change them through NIMBY lobbying, and they need to get past those NIMBYs in the first place. See: SF Bay Area development restrictions.
vacri 10y ago
A simple counter to these people is this: Show me on your property deed where it says you have the right to uninterrupted views. Property deeds give you the right to a piece of land, that's it.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago

Their home prices aren't impacted by this. Their asset is already rare enough that it is insulated from minor issues like this. I mean, who is going to come out to an area like this and not bother buying because they see a turbine? No one. If only one home was impacted, I could see that home suffering...but there is no choice here. You will either see turbines or you find a house fifty miles away. The homes fifty miles away will have more disadvantages than advantages. Santa Barbara has some of the most expensive coastal real estate in the US and they have line-of-site of numerous oil platforms. Santa Cruz beachfront homes have tripled in value since I moved to the Bay Area in 1994 even though they have line-of-site to a PGE plant with huge smokestacks. etc etc Location trumps minor annoyances.

jsight 10y ago

The article above implied that they would be about 5 miles away. I don't see that impacting home values.

hx87 10y ago

Why the assumption that a view with wind turbines would /negatively/ impact a property's value? If there are enough people who like wind turbines, the property value will stay put and perhaps increase.