<No, they are indeed public resources. If they are to be exploited for the benefit of private enterprise, then the public should be compensated.

Really? Who is "the public," and exactly what did it do to make the wind blow or the sun shine? Why should "the public" "own" a resource any more than a private company? Other than to serve as a conduit for politicians milking money out of a private company, of course, which is the only point of Kennedy's opposition. And I wonder exactly how much of the money paid to the "public" would the local residents get?

This isn't mining, or logging. The use of the wind blowing in off the bay does not deprive any other human being of any real resource whatsoever. The wind might be slowed down a fraction of a knot by the turbines. And God forbid some waterfront estate might see some towers on the horizon.

Try thinking, instead of kneejerking whatever Teddy the Hutt coughs up. This is a GOOD IDEA, from almost any standpoint, and liberals seeing that a corporation actually wants to build a profitable wind farm should be standing up and cheering instead of developing intestinal cramps from the idea that someone might actually make some money.

For God's sake, how many other such promising endeavors are being squelched right now from all the crap that anti-industry reactionaries are throwing at this pilot project?

Check out this Greenpeace ad.

For the record, a vast majority of resources in this country are already owned by the government, and typically it takes lousy care of them.