I don't mind if the media wants to report some idiot crackpot's comments, but they should still have some obligation to put the truth in their headlines.
"US town rejects solar panels amid fears they 'suck up all the energy from the sun' "
Is simply not a truthful statement. Of course, "US town rejects solar farm because they have already approved three other solar farms and they are concerned that a fourth solar farm will bring no further benefit to the community. Here are some crackpot's comments about it" doesn't make for great clickbait.
your headline would make sense if that was the case, but from the other linked article in the one i referenced that would appear to not be the case. one person spoke in regards to property value and blamed it on the solar farm, which may or may not be true. i would tend to feel that's not true based on statements by other residents such as:
"Mary Hobbs has been living in Woodland for 50 years and said she has watched it slowly becoming a ghost town with no job opportunities for young people.
She said her home is surrounded by solar farms and is no longer worth its value because of those facilities."
"Bobby Mann said he watched communities dry up when I-95 came along and warned that would happen to Woodland because of the solar farms.
Youre killing your town, he said. All the young people are going to move out.
maybe a town of only 1100 people with a median household income roughly half of the state avg and an unemployment rate of nearly 40% has bigger problems than solar farms springing up around a substation that's located outside the town itself. good for them that they want to protect their town, but it's not solar farms that's killing it.
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity ~ Seneca