Brad Messer Commentary
Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Power Tower Dilemma

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 it again.

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 less powerful.

Brad Messer— commentary, KTSA.


CPS 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
Private property should be protected. Use taxpayer owned property instead. (146)
59%
Government Canyon is by and for the people and should be protected. (101)
41%
  • 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
  • Tough 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.
  • Senator; 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.
  • private 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!
  • Neither 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.
  • Everybody 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.

Back to Brad's home page | Commentary Archive