Brad Messer Commentary
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
There is a terrific
level of respect in San Antonio for the rights of private property owners.
The puzzle of where
to put the giant, monstrous, scenery-ruining power transmission line demonstrates
In my website poll,
a non-scientific sampling of 247 respondents shows that people want to
protect private property owners even rich, powerful and famous ones
such as ex-Senator Gramm. By six-to-four, voters prefer using public property
at Government Canyon. "Private property should be protected. Use
taxpayer owned property instead, " one voter commented.
It's a hard question.
If it were easy, it'd be long-since answered. One respondent wrote, "Everybody
wants to protect the natural habitat. But if you ask me, the most endangered
thing is human rights!" He speaks for the apparent majority.
To this point,
my opinion is out-voted. I say preserve what little Edwards Aquifer
recharge land that local people have struggled to set aside and
let the Senator and his fellow landowners be treated as would anyone else
is about to decide where to run giant 200-foot transmission
towers across the northwest suburbs. Sen. Phil Gramm and other
influential property owners say the lines should avoid their
private property, and instead go across the Government Canyon
Natural Preserve. Total votes 247
property should be protected. Use taxpayer owned property instead.
Canyon is by and for the people and should be protected. (101)
- The introduction
of 200-foot transmission towers within or near established residential
neighborhoods is wrong. Consider the argument that some people
want noise suppression for their homes near the airport. They
built/purchased the homes when the airport was there. Now the
noise is a problem? Tough! However, if unsightly transmission
towers are installed within or near established private residential
areas, there will be economic loss to the property owners and
the potential for electromagnetic threats to residents' health
call, but if it has to be only those two choices, then private
property gets the nod for protection. It's almost a case by case
call. Ralph Green
- The majority
of responders are misinformed or stupid.
eat our dust! You DIDN'T help Veterans as much as you could have
(don't recall your support of Concurrent Receipt) except for lip
service! j 30 yr AF
- If the
general public is to benefit from a project, then public/government
property should be the first option to be utilized.
property is private property
- This needs
to be resolved on a case by case basis. The confiscation of private
property for the good of the state has gone on for years. The
question here is "Should Government Canyon be protedted?"
The answer here should be a loud and clear - Yes!
are my choice. Lines must be put in for the 'greater' good of
all. All the arguments can be made for the Interstate Hwy systems
or the Alaska Pipe Line. Where's the damage? Where's the overall
benifit? I don't like Gumby downtown, but I gott'a live with it.
wants to protect the natural habitat. But if you ask me, the most
endangered thing is human rights!
- Put the
wires underground and in a few years only the surveyers will know
where they are! Nobody should have these towers zussing, snapping,
and crackling in their back yards. I might have a slightly different
opinion if it was Henry C's place - he deserves it.
to Brad's home page | Commentary