6 ms·
It really depends what the impact actually is. If it's only affecting the view or the recreational value, then sorry, some demands and expectations simply don't
by samus 3y ago
It really depends what the impact actually is. If it's only affecting the view or the recreational value, then sorry, some demands and expectations simply don't scale. And that is also valid for small property owners - there are too many cases of zoning laws that prevent cities from increasing urban density to combat high property prices.
In cases where the reservoir was financed by selling pretty properties at the shore, then the whole thing is a non-starter anyways since the former would make it very easy to just sue the utility company should they touch the lake.
- kulahan 3y agoYes, I should be very clear that I don't want to protect large property owners with thousands of lots trying to protect their investments. That's a point where it's just the business's skill that's in question. However, most people will only ever buy one house. Or at the very least, they'll only ever own one house at a time (small legal overlaps not withstanding). It's a completely different story. That's all I'm saying.
- samus 3y agoAnd I understand from personal experience* that those people don't want a train line, a garbage dumpster, or a facility with toxic fallout being put next to them. But I also think that overly sweeping restrictions can block initiatives with small downsides but overall positive impact on society like building solar panels or wind turbines. *: the place where I grew up now has a factory next to it. It's unsightly, though it could have been much much worse, and sometimes noisy, but at least my parents at least can now also enjoy remote heating at ok-ish conditions. And it's nothing compared to the major pre-existing road immediately next to their house.