October 3, 2024
The state of Rhode Island can’t stop thousands of trees from being felled to make room for ground-mounted solar arrays, but the Warwick Historic District Commission can stop 23 solar panels from being installed on the roof of a private home.
The Ocean State’s priorities are out of whack. I know that’s hardly breaking news for anyone who has spent any time here.
When it comes to clear-cutting private land for solar, I have constantly been told that it is difficult to tell private property owners what they can and can’t do. I agree there needs to be a delicate balance between private property rights and the public good.
Yet, that only seems to apply disproportionately to a certain kind of project: against an individual requesting to have work done by someone who doesn’t know a guy.
We pussyfoot around illegal actions taken by those with power and/or wealth. Despite what the speaker of the House says, campaign donations buy favor.
A waterfront scrapyard on Allens Avenue in Providence has been flaunting its contempt for the state’s environmental regulations since it began operating in 2009. A West Greenwich quarry on New London Turnpike that abuts the Big River Management Area has been operating without a Rhode Island pollutant discharge elimination system permit for nearly two decades. Last year a North Kingstown country club illegally built a 550-foot-long seawall and the Coastal Resources Management Council is considering changing the rules to allow it to remain.
Smith Hill watches as municipalities, especially in rural towns with part-time planners and overworked volunteer boards, get bulldozed by developers looking to turn as much open space as possible into utility-scale solar.
The recent ruling in Warwick spotlighted this ongoing absurdity.
The Historic District Commission cited the city’s guidelines regarding solar installation for historic homes to deny the request by a 4-1 vote. Under current guidelines, solar panels on historic buildings are effectively banned so long as they are visible from a street, sidewalk, or other public right of way within the district.
“Roof locations for mechanical and electrical equipment including wind generators and solar panels are generally not appropriate unless they are visually unnoticeable at ground level or can be screened from view,” according to the city’s design guidelines.
The Bayside Avenue home in Pawtuxet Village was built in 1906. Plenty has changed in the past 118 years, as a commenter on an ecoRI News story noted:
“Would the builders of a custom home in 1906 turn away from state of the art technology when building such a home? Has the home had no upgrades since it was built? Where does he get his coal for his furnace and ice for his icebox.”
“Employing technology that slows the rate at which humanity chokes to death on its own waste seems like a good idea. If he puts solar on his roof, we should thank him.”
“Why does the historic commission allow cars in these neighborhoods? In 1906, they likely had a horse and carriage. Paved roads devoid of manure doesn’t preserve the historic character of the neighborhood. Same with electric wires on poles in the street.”
According to the commission’s webpage, “Historic District Designation stabilizes and improve property values, fosters civic beauty and strengthens the local economy. A property owner’s investment in a historic neighborhood will not be undermined by new development that does not respect the character of the neighborhood.”
The neighborhood is likely to be undermined by the impacts of our relentless burning of fossil fuels, but the historical misrepresentation of rooftop solar panels is the bigger concern — in a district crisscrossed with power lines, with paved streets, utility poles, and street signs, lawns cut with gasoline-powered mowers, and a Cove that is home to powerboats.
Solar carports aren’t common because … blah, blah, blah. Solar in already-developed areas is too expensive, plus more money is made cutting down trees to plant panels. Residential rooftop solar ruins the character of historic districts.
We hand out tax breaks and incentives to keep cranes in the sky but not trees.
Rhode Island’s reality is shaped by a funhouse mirror.
Frank Carini can be reached at [email protected]. His opinions don’t reflect those of ecoRI News.
Could you please forward this to the governor?
Bravo Frank. It’s rampant in Rhode Island. Environment is mostly an afterthought it seems. It’s sad really. Those solar farms along 95 are an eyesore and most likely a disaster for wild brook trout and other imperiled woodland wildlife. How much carbon was sequestered in those trees? I wonder what happened to the wood. I bet it was burned right? How about water? How much is used by golf courses, turf farms? How much are they “permitted “ to use? Let me guess, who knows? No permits or restrictions or registrations required. Right? How do we begin to make changes? Full time legislators maybe a start?
The clear cutting forest to install solar panels is a crime. Look at the town of west greenwich as a prime example.
Thank you for this article …. I have an historic home built in 1891, however not in an historic district… with solar!
Lets allow solar panels…. on all roof tops…
Omg Frank, thanks for calling this out. Don’t even get me started on how stupid it is that setbacks for ground mounted solar are usually at LEAST 15 feet from all property lines, making “carports” for residential homes basically impossible, unless you’re extremely rich and have a lot of land. Some people in the city have no room, making solar that they want another…fantasy like you said. There needs to be a carport exception so that anyone who wants a carport in their driveway can have one. The regulatory and policy mudpit we have to trudge through to get a deal signed let alone installed is eye watering. And people wonder why solar companies struggle and they’re so worried about companies going out of business while policies make it impossible for us to thrive. Honestly. SMH.
Despite all of the “brouhaha” about solar panels, I’ve yet to see the electric bill reduced. What happens to all of this electricity that is generated by these panels, and there are many, many solar fields in the state.
I have friends who pay almost zero electic bills after installing solar. And preventing rooftop solar while encouraging deforeststion is beyond absurd. it is criminal. Ask the folks who lost everything to Helene.
Spot on. Solar panels belong on existing structures, not on clear-cut forest. The problem is money. The federal government doles it out to their cronies and donors who go for the cheapest, least resistant path. The politicians doing the doling then get kickbacks in the form of campaign donations. As long as this big-money corruption is allowed to continue, forests will get wiped out. Private development, requiring real risk and real skin in the game is the only way to stop the wholesale destruction.
The Beaver River historic and designated scenic corridor in Richmond RI is now home to acres of ground-mounted solar panels. The town wisely prohibited this and neighborhood association fought it for years. Green Development took it all the way to RI Superior Court and apparently knew a guy or 2 or more. Green went ahead and finished work even while this ruling is under appeal. They seem overly confident that no repeal will happen. No trees were cut down as this was farmland but still a poor location for solar. And by the way abuts the Beaver River, federally designated as a Wild and Scenic River
good comments all, but I’ll again add the inconvenient thought that environmentalists contribute to solar sprawl into the woodlands with misleading talk of so often using the term “clean energy” for renewables. That kind of talk also undermines the case for emphasizing conservation, efficiency, better land use, and other tools to reduce energy demand
Bingo Frank!.That you clearly understand the “know a guy” political culture of RI explains most of it. The rest is explained by avarice.
Good one Frank!! None of the situations you cited make sense! Very frustrating!!
Thanks for raising awareness on this absurdity Frank.
There will come a day (in the near future I’m afraid) when the question asked over and over again is why we didn’t do more to slow down the effects of warming. Waterfront, historic district, hilltop, valley homes, etc., it doesn’t matter. Extreme warming affects all of us wherever we live today. Solar, wind, geo-thermal; all the technology is ready today. People can make up excuses and spew out misinformation all they want. They (all of us) will broil in the furnace we’ve created. We can do better and should continue to do whatever it takes to accelerate the transition to renewables. Oh – and our precious trees…that’s for another reply.
Thanks Frank. Great article. Wish RI had a referendum process.
Barry, you are right on. I did some research on wind power for a presentation. The windmills on the Providence port make sense–they are on wasteland and the power stays right there. But I was appalled at what goes into windmills built away from settled areas–the waste of creating roads to carry heavy trucks with tons of concrete and rebar to build windmills with a 25-year life span to produce energy which takes, again, more work and waste to transmit the power to places that want to use it.
In 1983, I was in Israel and every building had a solar water tower on top of it, with electric back up if there wasn’t enough solar power. Aesthetically, they were ugly, but they were beautiful, and they worked.
After the research on windmills, I concluded that the important work should be done on halving our energy use and charging double for what we do use. Then maybe we’ll get somewhere. Meanwhile, we’re using bandaids on major wounds.
Frank,
Excellent story and your points are right on the mark. I did notice solar shingles on a roof of a house in Wickford that is within their historic district.