From David Tepper:
The irony of this situation is that you are embracing the very "statist" outcome you abhor, especially if you believe that governmental issues are best handled/decided on a local or regional level and not by dictates from a national or federal government.
Yet that is exactly what has happened here. The local/regional governments of the Aberdeen area, following legally established procedures, decided the Trump project should not be allowed.
That decision was then overruled by the national government of Scotland, invoking dubious claims of "the national interest." My guess is, if the same thing happened in Texas, you would be appalled.
P.S. If there was a market for a documentary about the evils of green energy, wouldn't there be one?
Response:
DT- addressing the P.S. first, are there not any documentaries? If not, might it have to do with the tendency that people involved in commerce do so for a profit, and that for the most part, those pursuing productive endeavors do not have the time or inclination to dwell in aesthetic judgements and free association? BTW, I am not against documentaries, pro or con. I just think that perhpas this may not be the place to advertise them.
On the charge of my embracing “statist” outcomes, it is my understanding that the local government’s decision was very narrow, by one vote, driven primarily by one individual heading the deciding group. If memory serves, that group was but a small subset of the elected local government body. Both at the local and regional level, the project had substantial approval of the citizenry as measured by numerous polls. From most everything I’ve seen, the process was very democratic; the national authorities intervening only when it was clear that the public interest as demonstrated by the project’s wide support was being frustrated by an individual intent on substituting his personal preferences for that of his constituents.
Regarding your guess, you could not be more wrong. I do believe in federalism, but not for one second do I think that every local and state decision is right and not subject to appeal to a higher authority. I do believe that the higher authority MUST defer to the Constitution, not as any current administration wishes it to be (a “living Constitution”), but as it was written and properly amended.
I’ve represented several landowners in zoning cases and know first hand that the preferences of the NIMBYs, often under the guise of environmentalism, can become statutory through their undue influence. As the U.S. Park Service has noted from experience, “the person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist. The one who wants to build it this year is a developer”.
Private property rights are the foundation of the economy. No political body acting “for the public interest” should be allowed to take these rights under ANY circumstances without fully compensating the owners.
Richard seems to believe that government creates value by what it “allows” a property owner to do with his property. In effect, the deterioration of private property rights has been ongoing, at different rates in different places. Under the cover of environmentalism, his view appears to be carrying the day. The traditional bundle-of-rights vested in the owner is being increasingly usurped by the Common without compensation, leaving him as a mere supplicant with maybe as much liability as opportunity to enjoy what is supposedly his.
Had the hold-out owners in Aberdeenshire (sp) been forced to sell, I would have been concerned. And yes, I am troubled by the Kelo case, though am encouraged by the reaction in a majority of the states.