Is the Adirondack Park truly a setting where nature can thrive and people can interact with it or just a museum?
Museums - by definition - are devoted to appearances. They have to be, that's how they tell whatever story they are trying to convey.
The park on the other hand is supposed to be a living, breathing thing. It is supposed to embrace life, to embrace interaction, to embrace movement and activity.
This past week, Hans-Udu Kurr - an Indian Lake resident - took the opportunity to address the APA regarding their rather restrictive language surrounding wind turbine use.
According to Kurr's statement, only three individuals have successfully navigated the expensive and time consuming process of gaining approval to erect a personal-use turbine to generate electricity.
Following his presentation, three commissioners indicated that they agreed with Kurr.
Wind turbines are consistent with the goals of the park. They are a means to create a necessary resource - energy - without polluting or devastating nature.
There have been a few reports of bird flocks getting wiped out by the giant turbines, but even these instances are few and far between.
The primary complaint among wind turbine detractors is the visibility.
They have a problem with turbines interfering with the scenery. They're not "natural" enough.
I guess they would rather have us continue to rely on coal-fired plants to generate our electricity.
And why not? Coal plants are only the most destructive force currently at play in the park.
These power plants are killing the small ponds throughout the park. It is these plants that produce a large percentage of atmospheric pollutants which fall to Earth as rain - most of them hundreds of miles away.
But we can't sacrifice our view can we?
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
The park is a place dedicated to the health of nature. Further, it is dedicated to people living in balance with nature.
The argument that the scenery is more important than actual park health is totally inconsistent with everything the park stands for.
Further, turbines could be placed strategically to allow for many scenic areas to be void of them.
It needs to be reiterated, people live here and they do have an impact on the environment. We should be seeking anything that would bring even greater balance in our lifeways and turbines would be a huge step in this direction.
We as a people need to become the model of balance - this includes biologically neutral economic viability and methods of subsistence.
I urge the regulatory agencies to ease the restrictions on wind turbines. In the park, true health must outweigh appearances - unless it is just a museum after all.
Jonathan Alexander is News Enterprise editor. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org