I agree with "because it is the law" doen't mean it is right, and I would suggest that some of the bankruptcy laws don't result in a just outcome. However, the law is correct much more often than not. The real question is whether it is correct in this instance? I have yet to see a reason why it is not.
Why not bury the power cables? Because I think that can be up to 10 to 20 times more expensive than pylons. How do you bury pylons through a woodland? By veering left and right of the trees? By digging a tunnel under them? It is complicated.
I live in the west of Ireland. I was recently talking to a friend who works in sustainable energy. We were talking about the potential of wave and wind energy in Mayo, and how it could contribute to the national grid. However there is a practical problem. The grid and pylons in Mayo cannot support the generation of massive amounts of electricity and subsequent supply to the rest of the country. In order to build such a network, it would take a staggering 8 years on average to get planning permission. 8 years! This is mostly because it would involve powerlines running over land owned by many many people, and any one of them has the ability to both hold up such a project and (rightly) stop the proposal in the planning stages if such cessation is justified.
Putting the network in place is difficult. But power is needed for homes, schools, hospitals, factories, creating jobs, and creating an environment that attract foreign investment, etc.
For the sake of fairness, for the sake of balancing the protection of people's property with the necessity of building the required infrastructure in this country every case must be judged individually with regard to the details of that case.
In this instance the planning authorities ruled in favour of the development. In this instance the court ruled in favour of the ESB. The planning authorities and courts are not always correct (Henrehan vs Merck, Sharpe and Dohme being a famous example), but for the most part they are correct.
Until I hear one reason why this lady has been wronged, I for one am going to assume that the courts are correct. I won't be influenced by newspaper articles that tend to make the subject overly emotional, and make a people's hero out of the person who stands against the will of a corporation or court. Is this the moral battle of a David vs a Goliath or is it just a person being stubborn and gaining sympathy because of her age and her otherwise law biding demeanour? I don't know.
