[thehappypm]

A city is literally the worst place for wind. High property values, low tolerance for visual blight and noise, expensive work forces for maintenance, difficult to access.. you want wind in places like farms, where land and labor are cheap, access is easy, and nobody is going to complain about the noise.

[sunshiney]

I'm rural and locals hate them, wish they were installed in the places where the demand is being created by the density of population: cities. There is considerable ostracization of any farmer who opts in.

Low tolerance for visual blight? We agree. We consider them a blight also, particularly for people who choose natural sights over the blight of concrete structures. Noise? Same thing. We hate the noise of any traffic and yet that noise is Ok here? The complaints are significant can't Labor is not a good argument. It's expensive here also. Specialty techs are needed and the drive time charges alone are exhorbitant.

These could be placed instead on the top of city buildings. It's been done already. You wouldn't hear the noise over the traffic or neighbors that live inches from you. No birds would be injured or migratory paths interrupted. Wildlife oaths would not be displaced. The visual is not an issue. You already have visual blight in a city.

And city dwellers created the huge need.

[7952]

Also. They can create flickering sun which is unpleasant and unhealthy. During cold weather they can shed ice. And they might fall over or catch fire and hurt someone. A safety zone is an easy way to eliminate any danger to the public.