To the editor of THE EAGLE:
There have been a number of letters to the editor recently opposing the prospect of wind turbines in Peru. I am pro wind. I find the technology fascinating, the lack of pollution compelling and I find them aesthetically pleasing in form and in their languid motion. The objections of those opposed, beyond the perfunctory call-outs to Thoreau, seem to fall in two main categories.
Either they urge time for more studies (which usually means that the findings of the myriad studies already done do not agree with their preconceived notions); or they mine the same vein as vaccinations cause autism, cellphone use brain cancer, overhead power lines sterility etc. And I find them entirely unpersuasive. As an aside, when I was a kid and TV was new, it was "known" that being mesmerized by test patterns caused epileptic seizures. Pseudoscience is not new.
Amid all the noise there runs a disturbing current from a faction of those opposed. They either don’t understand how representative democracy works in a republic; or worse, they do but feel justified in breaching the pact that has served us so well because their cause is "right." A number of years ago, long before the current brouhaha, at the behest of and with the aid of the state of Massachusetts, many small hill towns adopted wind turbine bylaws as a proactive move for what was felt to be a coming technology. When an applicant wanted to amend that bylaw to his own advantage, those opposed quite rightly drummed up support and convincingly defeated the amendment.
However, when the applicant reapplied under the existing bylaw, those opposed seem to feel their previous victory entitled them to derail the new application without due process. Their mantra seems to be that since the previous vote showed a large number of residents wanted to constrain wind projects in one way or another, that town officials should just stop all action on any wind related applications. They evidently are willing to ignore that that would be unethical, im-moral, and illegal.
That’s not how our process works. It doesn’t matter if your cause is the KKK or the NAACP, the tea party or Obamacare, you don’t get to abrogate the law because you feel your cause is "right," even if most agree with you. And if, as some have suggested, "It’s a conspiracy," then it’s a conspiracy by our town officials to uphold the American political and legal system, and they are to be commended. JIM MARTIN