Property rights vs. viewsheds? When it comes to solar farms, there’s sharp disagreement

Rural Virginia — especially Southside — has become a center for solar development.

Not everyone is happy about that.

Some localities have pushed back, limiting solar farms or banning them outright. In the past session of the General Assembly, that prompted talk of legislation to give the state some say in where major solar facilities are located. That didn’t happen, but the issue is certainly in the air, which raises a host of questions. What role should the state play in energy siting decisions? Whose voice should carry greater weight locally: the property owner who wants to use his or her property for a solar farm or neighbors who see it as an intrusion on their viewshed?

As part of our ongoing Cardinal Way project about civility, we ran t wo opposing essays on solar farms and asked readers to weigh in. And they did — strongly so.

Ricky Rash of Nottoway County was typical of many we heard from in Southside who don’t like solar farms: “The rural central and Southside Virginia areas are being unfairly targeted for solar due to the cheaper land. No one is talking about the construction of powerlines across the commonwealth in the form of eminent domain.” His solution: “Building the data centers and solar farms side by side and pipe the fiber at a much lower rate than overhead mega KW power towers.”

The challenge there is an economic one: Data center companies like Northern Virginia because that’s where the data center workforce is; attempts to lure data centers to rural Virginia haven’t amounted to much. However, solar has concentrated in Southside for the very reason he says: The land is cheaper.

Chuck Angier of Pittsylvania County points out that “if you look at the map, only certain RURAL localities have been targeted for solar installations. I suggest that the overall impact of policy needs to be shared.”

Although there were lots of readers in Southside who made it clear they didn’t want solar farms, virtually no one wanted the state to get involved in siting decisions. “How and where solar energy is produced should be managed locally,” said Laurie Huber of Mecklenburg County. Just in case that wasn’t clear enough, here’s what Elizabeth “Bepe” Kafka of Grayson County had to say about state involvement: “Never, never, never! Our beloved landscape and our livelihoods should NOT be sacrificed for people in NOVA to make huge amounts of money. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!”

However, many readers also said the state should be helping local governments by producing the information they need to make an informed decision on solar projects. “The state should be required to provide information to each potential solar project via existing branches of the state government, such as the Department of Wildlife Resources, Department of Forestry, Department of Environmental Quality,” said Kay O’Shannahan of Lynchburg. “Decisions on solar projects should not be allowed to be finalized without input from each agency. How can local governments make educated decisions that focus on more than potential revenues without the facts?”

Liz Povar of Henrico County suggested the state work with localities to identify the most appropriate sites for solar and wind facilities — and perhaps even acquire some to market to energy companies, much the way business parks are created. “The Commonwealth could serve as an educator, convener, neutral and transparent information resource for localities that are interested in solar development,” she said. “By sharing the location factors, economic impact, environmental impact, etc. of solar farms, it can then be informed about appropriate sites to market in partnership with localities and regions.”

Carla Barrell of Hardy, which straddles the Bedford County-Franklin County line, was the only one who gave an outright “yes” to the question about state involvement — and even that was qualified. “Yes, if the only reason a site was denied was because of NIMBY issues,” she said, referring to the “not in my backyard” phenomenon. “If a site has all of the required approvals, and the owner wants it, then they should be able to appeal to the state when it’s denied due to neighbors’ dislike. An owner should have the right to use the property how they choose. I would rather see solar panels than another subdivision.”

That brings us to the sharpest disagreements: Whose voice should carry more weight, the property owner or the neighbors?

Hazel Bowman Smith of Charlotte County was emphatic: “Landowners. It is their land and their decision.”

Oscar Joost of Patrick County said much the same thing: “Property owner — as their right to use their property overrides another’s right to a view.”

That brings us to the controversy — because lots of people feel views should override property rights.

“Zoning is to protect everyone,” said Mary Stevens of Culpeper. “Solar is an INDUSTRIAL project NOT meant for agricultural land or residential areas. I moved to a rural area for peace, quiet and the pastoral view. Most would not have moved here if they had known they would have to deal with this. I don’t want an airport, a factory or a slaughterhouse next door either.”

She’s not alone.

“If a majority of adjacent property owners have concerns . . .  those concerns should have higher weighting than the county/landowner economic gain,” said Larry Dorris of Appomattox County.

Mary Hodge of Caroline County points out that viewshed rights have already been recognized in some decisions. “A solar permit was denied in Amherst County in February 2024. One of the supervisors stated that a viewshed was an inherent right to be protected and preserved, and this factored into his vote of denial. Another solar permit was recently denied in Orange County on similar grounds. Rural citizens treasure our natural resources, and we want to see farms, fields, woods, and beautiful views. A property owner’s rights should not infringe on others’ rights … A solar installation is an industrial electric plant, and has no place in a rural and agriculturally zoned locality, and yes, neighbors hold the weight in opinion that it would destroy the view and despoil the land, despoil their entire community. Also, Virginia is such a beautiful state, and relies heavily on tourism and appreciation of this natural beauty and viewsheds. No one wants to see this ugly and wasteful destruction.”

Beauty, though, is in the eye of the beholder. “No doubt there are those who find some or all of these attractive: large distribution centers; expansive data center campuses; noise- and odor-generating industrial and agricultural operations; towering, miles-long electrical transmission infrastructure; landfills; and massive on- and off-shore wind turbines,” said Joy Loving of Rockingham County. “But many others likely either don’t feel that way or just accept them as necessary annoyances. Solar facilities may be viewed by some as ruining their personal viewshed; others, like me, appreciate that they use the sun’s energy and are far less destructive of air-, water-, and land resources and less risky than other energy sources. When I look at solar panels, I see them as a practical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND lower electricity bills … Who’s right is perhaps less important than making sure we do what we need to do to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help ensure a livable future for all of us.”

Got a suggestion for a Cardinal Way topic? Let us know.

The post Property rights vs. viewsheds? When it comes to solar farms, there’s sharp disagreement appeared first on Cardinal News .