California. Can blocking development hurt more than help?

Blocking development is a “sporting pastime” in San Francisco and in much of the rest of California too. But if California wants 33% renewable energy by 2020 then it can’t allow challenges continually be made on new renewable energy projects. Certainly NIMBYs may often have important points to make but maybe they should only be allowed to mount challenges once or twice during a project but not endlessly. And perhaps they should also have to show how the project would adversely affect them personally.

One comment

  1. Interesting juxtaposition: here on The High Desert we have as a fairly evenly mixed result of a hundred years of misplaced fire interventions and thirty years of total opposition to any kind of forest intervention activity an incredibly dangerous situation – a conflagration waiting to happen, not a question of if but when – but also a unique if short-term opportunity for both renewables and our thirty-three percent U6 unemployment. Yet the Corporate Environmentalists gleefully obstruct, not unlike our do-nothing Republican Congress, any attempt to address the situation.

    We had our first fire of the season, a roadside brush-fire, Thursday afternoon. We could sit on our fists and lean back on our thumbs and let the whole came region and every town in it burn – an area greater the the state of Vermont – or we could go out and cut down all the dead timber and turn it into biobutinol, putting a bunch of people to work while reducing the overall fire danger AND weaning ourselves from fossil fuels but nooooo……

    It’s not even a question of NIMBYs, most of these obstructionists live on the west side (of The Oregon Cascades), if in Oregon at all. They just take delight in interfering with anything that may be of community value.

    Not to mention they make money off of the lawsuits…

Comments are closed.