Nearby solar projects might reduce values of nearby exurban homes by ~ 1%.
My public policy response: Tough. Build 'em anyway
providencejournal.com/news/20200930/…
My public policy response: Tough. Build 'em anyway
providencejournal.com/news/20200930/…
My house would probably lose 1% of its value if my neighbors chose to paint their house flaming pink or replace thier lawn with gravel. I don't get special legal protection from that, and there's not even any public benefit from those changes. 2/
If you buy a house as an investment and are unprepared for "stuff happens", you ought to be putting your money somewhere else 3/
If there's a case that solar on such sites has larger environmental drawbacks, or is a net economic loss at a state/regional level, or otherwise that there is a public policy reason not to permit them, fine. 4/
It's not the job of public policy, though, for forgo broad public benefits to avoid *small* concentrated losses for a few homeowners. That's more like the opposite of how it ought to work. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
