- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Approval for Calcasieu Parish Solar Project
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:29 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:29 am
Yesterday evening the Calcasieu Parish Planning and Zoning Board granted a zoning exception to allow a request to lease land to an Oregon business to fill up 2400 acres of panels in the Holmwood community area. Most of the land is presently zoned agricultural. The vote was 6 to 4 favorable.
Sweetlake Land and Oil Company is the applicant. A family spokesperson touted the economic benefits of the project.
Homewood area residents objected to the project due loss of farmland, wildlife, flooding, traffic congestion, loss of property values and lack of information about the solar panels to withstand hurricane force winds and inability to use the energy produced and sold.
The attorney for over one hundred area opponents of the project said that this issue is not over because it was not a legal public meeting for the reason that all opponents were not given an opportunity to speak and the zoning board does not have the authority for a final approval.
If you were an objective Board member how would you vote?
Sweetlake Land and Oil Company is the applicant. A family spokesperson touted the economic benefits of the project.
Homewood area residents objected to the project due loss of farmland, wildlife, flooding, traffic congestion, loss of property values and lack of information about the solar panels to withstand hurricane force winds and inability to use the energy produced and sold.
The attorney for over one hundred area opponents of the project said that this issue is not over because it was not a legal public meeting for the reason that all opponents were not given an opportunity to speak and the zoning board does not have the authority for a final approval.
If you were an objective Board member how would you vote?
9
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:52 am to CharleyLake
quote:
2400 acres of panels in the Holmwood community area
2400 acres of solar panels south of I-10 where hurricanes frequent? What could go wrong?
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:59 am to CharleyLake
That sounds like a trainwreck... Will this be between bell city and holmwood off of 14 or further south towards 397?
Posted on 8/18/21 at 8:27 am to CharleyLake
Over 60% of all land developed in the US every year is active agriculture land, this was before all these fricking solar projects. Which btw from some initial research fricks the soil pretty good.
Elimination of the stepped up basis, continually shrinking available AG land, ever increasing human population, soon to come substantial increase in Ethanol and Biodiesel mandates. Manipulation and concentration of power in the protein supply chains, in particular the beef industry. Major federal pushes for "Sustainability", look for mandates to come on regenerative farming and stricter regs for herbicides and pesticides, also direct takeover of private lands, ie. 30by30 and legislation on minority farmers. Ever increasing shift from family operations to corporate/institutional operations. And finally the return of WOTUS! Just off the top of my head some of things that are barreling towards us which will end with a massive concentration of power over the food supply while also putting the US farmer as we know it becoming a thing of the past into overdrive.
End of my rant for the day. Turning ag land into solar is bad anyway you cut it. Put those fricking ugly things on top of the countless warehouse and large building roofs.
Also would love to see the contracts on who is responsible for reclamation of the land.
Elimination of the stepped up basis, continually shrinking available AG land, ever increasing human population, soon to come substantial increase in Ethanol and Biodiesel mandates. Manipulation and concentration of power in the protein supply chains, in particular the beef industry. Major federal pushes for "Sustainability", look for mandates to come on regenerative farming and stricter regs for herbicides and pesticides, also direct takeover of private lands, ie. 30by30 and legislation on minority farmers. Ever increasing shift from family operations to corporate/institutional operations. And finally the return of WOTUS! Just off the top of my head some of things that are barreling towards us which will end with a massive concentration of power over the food supply while also putting the US farmer as we know it becoming a thing of the past into overdrive.
End of my rant for the day. Turning ag land into solar is bad anyway you cut it. Put those fricking ugly things on top of the countless warehouse and large building roofs.
Also would love to see the contracts on who is responsible for reclamation of the land.
This post was edited on 8/18/21 at 8:30 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 8:34 am to JDPndahizzy
It borders Ward Line and Old Camp Roads and others. It would be west of Holmwood.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 8:42 am to GREENHEAD22
One of the opponents, the wife of a rice farmer, drew the greatest response when she suggested if the proposed project would not have impact on landowners, consideration for the location should be limited to bordering the Sweeetlake owner's homes or Sweetlake's Duck Hunting Lodge in Cameron Parish.
In a rebuttal the Aurora spokesperson said that location in Cameron Parish "was not feasible."
In a rebuttal the Aurora spokesperson said that location in Cameron Parish "was not feasible."
Posted on 8/18/21 at 8:49 am to CharleyLake
quote:Dont solar farms have very few employees?
A family spokesperson touted the economic benefits of the project.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 8:50 am to CharleyLake
quote:
inability to use the energy produced and sold
I can see some validity to the other arguments against, particularly the hurricane point, but this one baffled me. My neighbor installs solar panels and I am entitled to the electricity?
Can anyone clarify this?
Posted on 8/18/21 at 8:56 am to jimbeam
Exactly, installation uses a lot of manpower, but that is for a short time and more times that not it is done with out of town contractors.
There will be very few long-term jobs created with this, like 4.
There will be very few long-term jobs created with this, like 4.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 8:56 am to BallsEleven
One opponent who was concerned about hazardous materials said that he has been unable to obtain a MSDS.
The Aurora spokesman made a correction to an older statement about its liability. Their insurance would cover a wind blown panel only if it was determined to be installed in a faulty manner.
The Aurora spokesman made a correction to an older statement about its liability. Their insurance would cover a wind blown panel only if it was determined to be installed in a faulty manner.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:06 am to CharleyLake
I think the solar shite is stupid but if the landowner owns the land I dont see why it bothers anyone. not like the solar panels will look any worse than anything else down there.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:07 am to CharleyLake
quote:
Their insurance would cover a wind blown panel only if it was determined to be installed in a faulty manner.
HAHAHAHAHA... such bullshite. Translation, if you home is damaged by one of our panels taking a ride in the wind, go frick yourself.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:08 am to diat150
quote:
not like the solar panels will look any worse than anything else down there.
I'd rather look at fields planted in rice/soybeans..
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:09 am to CharleyLake
This post was edited on 8/18/21 at 9:10 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:20 am to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Also would love to see the contracts on who is responsible for reclamation of the land.
This is my main objection to the proposed solar farms in WBR. I respect a landowners rights to use their land as they want. But who cleans up the land if/when the solar farm goes tits up? If 15 years from now the solar panels are deemed dangerous or simply are no longer a viable business model, whose gonna get that shite out of the cane fields?
I have a sneaky suspicion the taxpayers will get the bill. Too many issues unresolved to trust this state or those involved with it to act in my best interest.
And as to “economic development”, please tell me where those benefits are. They don’t produce a bunch of jobs so I’m not sure where the benefits for the residents are. At least in contrast to the potential negatives.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:20 am to tigerinthebueche
“We’ll worry about that later.”
And by that I mean FEMA is gonna pick up 90% of the bill (Money printer go brrr)
And by that I mean FEMA is gonna pick up 90% of the bill (Money printer go brrr)
This post was edited on 8/18/21 at 9:24 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:26 am to diat150
quote:
think the solar shite is stupid but if the landowner owns the land I dont see why it bothers anyone. not like the solar panels will look any worse than anything else down there.
It’s not about esthetics. It’s about tying up the land for 25 years with panels that have some pretty nasty shite in them and providing no appreciable economic benefit to anyone other than the landowner and the solar farm owner. Both of whom likely do not reside next to the farm.
I liken it to putting a waste disposal site on your property and you’re the only employee working there. I doubt your neighbors would have enthusiasm for that.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:26 am to JDPndahizzy
quote:
I'd rather look at fields planted in rice/soybeans..
who gives a shite what you want to look at it is his land.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:30 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
providing no appreciable economic benefit to anyone other than the landowner and the solar farm owner.
I didnt know that people that own land have to use it to provide economic benefit to others.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 9:41 am to diat150
quote:
didnt know that people that own land have to use it to provide economic benefit to others.
they don’t. No one went to the land owner and told them what to do with their land.
The landowner is asking for approval from the public. He’s citing economic benefits as a reason for approval. There don’t seem to be any. If you don’t like that then don’t try to do something with the land that is controversial and requires public approval. It’s pretty simple.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News