With regard to the Lone Oak Solar Farm, your editorial said, in part, "Specifically, nonparticipants are concerned about the view from their homes, the resale value of their properties and the use of prime farmland for solar panels instead of crops."
I believe that the opponents are just plain silly. I am a farm girl and would prefer to see and smell freshly turned earth and crops growing happily in the fields. But, a solar field doesn't use roaring farm equipment and chemicals being spread wherever the wind takes them. Which would be better for your health?
Property values, might be affected, I suppose. But there is no evidence to support that premise.
Prime farm land is not going to get up and move away. It will be there when the wind farm has outlived its productive life. And it will be rested.
There will be clean, renewable energy produced and the solar company will contribute substantially, by way of taxes.
The advantages in this case, seem so clear. It really does look as if the only logical reason that some don't want this near, is that they won't like the way it looks.
Pamela Eacret, Pendleton