Originally posted by JaTo:
The difference is the yachts get moored at some pier somewhere and most people that I know don't vacation or move to Cape Cod for the "view" of the houses...
It's the ocean view and aestetic that they go for, as well as the New England "quaintness". Having an everlasting and STATIONARY man-made blenders beating the air just in sight would ruin it for a LOT of folks, not just the wealthy liberals...
I've done a fair amount of boating in that area as well as some fishing, and there are places 8-10 miles out that still don't sink below 50 ft.
I'd like to see the reasoning behind this "cost" issue of moving out past the horizon.
Like I said, I've been up there more than a few times and know the Cape rather well. I've found very few things that "ruin" the view around there (and I'm pretty fussy), but I'm afraid this would. Again, the boats get moored or move on to another location, and I've yet to see too many houses up there detract from the ocean views...
I'm all for calling hypocracy on a bunch of liberal enviro-wackos, but there's a valid concern here.
I'm sorry, I don't see what's so "quaint" about looking at the horizon with nothing but water and sky out there. Nothing worth bitching over.
The cost issue was the extra cable it would require to get out there. The longer underwater cables have to go, the more things can go wrong.
Take a cue from the Danish. They don't seem to mind them at all, and all Denmark has going for it is waterfront! I guess it's proof how we will never be progressive as the Europeans.
And you know damn well that moving them out farther wouldn't help. The [censored] with the boats would still be bitching.
Last edited by PackRat; 07/26/03 09:33 PM.
