Why is it that so many windmills get planted where rich people don’t live?
That is, in fact, where most of them are built.
Is this because the most reliable winds happen to churn and swirl in areas where poor and moderate-income folks live?
You have read that rich folks in the Cape Cod area have fought against windmills there. My understanding is that the windmills would not be seen from shore. They would be seen by those on yachts. People like Walter Cronkite and Teddy Kennedy. They have lent their voices to the protests.
In my state windmills have been planted on Tug Hill in in the North Country. There are some, but not a whole lot of rich people up there. Not many Cronkites and Kennedys at any rate.
It seems to me that windmills might work well in Manhattan. In fact, in all of our big cities. Picture windmills on every tall building in every city. Does it seem strange to you that no such windmills seem to get proposed? And if they don’t, would it be because a lot of rich people in Manhattan and Boston don’t want to look at them?
Is it possible that most city folks don’t want to see and hear windmills all over their cities? Because they would be eyesores? If that is the case, why are windmills on Tug Hill not considered eyesores?
In addition to windmills, how about solar systems on tops of all buildings in cities? How about solar panels on the sides of the buildings? How about windmills and solar panels along all of our coast lines? Along all the beaches? In state parks? In national parks?
For most folks, these are the wrong places for solar panels and windmills. They would be unsightly. Which begs the question: Why aren’t they unsightly in areas where the rural poor live?
Oil wells today take up not much more room than windmills. They are clean. They are quiet. So why do people feel it is okay to plonk down a hundred windmills in an area. But it is not all right to have an oil well in the same area?
New York City was allowed to pretty much stop development in rural areas that are in the watershed for the city. Parts of the watershed are 150 miles from the city. People who live and work there have their hands tied. These were impoverished areas to begin with. Under the restrictions - on industry, on farming, etc - they are suffering additional blight.
Would the people of New York City stand for such restrictions in their areas? Would the people who live in the wealthier suburbs allow them?
In an earlier era lots of poor folks lost their homes and home towns. These were flooded. When the cities built dams for their water. Do you suppose many of the estates of the multi-millionaires were ever flooded?
------
Change of subject. Change of questions. You know we have had food scares lately. People have got sick from e coli on green onions. And on spinach. And on a few other foods.
I am wondering why we can’t have a food scare with a useless vegetable like kale? Why can’t we get it banished? Along with godawful turnips? And ëorrible parsnips? And yucky rutabaga? How about a little fairness here? Let’s spread the food bans to some of these really lousy vegetables. I guess some manure got onto the banned vegetables. Manure would go perfectly on turnips and parsnips.
I’ve been trying to have these foods deep-sixed since I was a kid. At age 7 I knew the world would be better off without them. Especially rutabagas and parsnips.
And don’t try sending me your recipe for honey-coated parsnips. You’re too late.
From Tom ... as in Morgan.

For more columns and for Tom’s radio shows (and to write to Tom): tomasinmorgan.com.