Isn't that the way of things?
That a government department or agency takes offense and jumps to conclusions without really listening to what the folks are just sayin?
Oh, the plight of the government worker. It must be tough to take the time to actually read all the facts and look at things from the perspective of 'outside the box'.
Good idea for Erin Smiddy of APCHA to line out the facts for the folks.
Shame she had to do it with the tone of condescending. Shame that someone like Andy Stone had to encourage and fuel animosity against APCHA with his recent column.
Most folks fully understand that APCHA isn't the bad guy.
The real bad guy is the entrenched power of developers and builders who have been cashing in on the subsidies, tax credits and lower-tier building standards these developments hold. And the politicians fueled by special interests that advocate it all.
Of course the little guy and the originally well-intended agency are going to ultimately be the only ones left out in the cold.
Too bad the flamers like Andy Stone and the Aspen Times encourage such a travesty of justice and too bad that any government worker becomes so apathetic they can no longer hear what the folks are really just sayin.
Read the rules and regs of APCHA? Click title.
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Showing posts with label boondoggle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boondoggle. Show all posts
December 27, 2011
SandBox Comments: Aspen Times/Maurice Emmer "A million here, a million there"
Maurice Emmer:
"...The hydroelectric plant's financial projections are only as good as the assumptions. Reality puts the lie to assumptions. Movement in a few assumptions could make the plant a financial disaster. Consider, for example, the 70 percent increase in project costs already acknowledged.
Why is Aspen marching down this risky road? It claims that the success of existing aged hydroelectric plants proves the wisdom. But the facts of the city's other hydroelectric sites are entirely different.
Aspen can buy renewable electricity generated elsewhere at affordable rates and resell it to Aspen's residents. This could happen in months, not years. Large utilities, capturing much greater economies of scale than Aspen's tiny operations, employing professional utility management that knows how to mitigate risk, could provide reliable streams of renewable energy indefinitely. Such utilities' future rates might increase — or decrease, given that supplies of traditional and renewable energy are increasing.
Moreover, any price risk from buying energy should be compared to the numerous risks of constructing another city-owned hydroelectric plant and being stuck with the costs and uncertainties associated with it for 50 to 80 years. It's not as if there isn't a price issue with the plant itself; even now there is strong evidence that hydroelectricity will be more expensive than other renewable electricity.
Let's get greener now: Buy existing renewable energy from a
reliable source, shut down the hydroelectric-plant boondoggle, and, this being Aspen, prepare for the next one. "
(Learn more? Click title. Comment to discuss)
"...The hydroelectric plant's financial projections are only as good as the assumptions. Reality puts the lie to assumptions. Movement in a few assumptions could make the plant a financial disaster. Consider, for example, the 70 percent increase in project costs already acknowledged.
Why is Aspen marching down this risky road? It claims that the success of existing aged hydroelectric plants proves the wisdom. But the facts of the city's other hydroelectric sites are entirely different.
Aspen can buy renewable electricity generated elsewhere at affordable rates and resell it to Aspen's residents. This could happen in months, not years. Large utilities, capturing much greater economies of scale than Aspen's tiny operations, employing professional utility management that knows how to mitigate risk, could provide reliable streams of renewable energy indefinitely. Such utilities' future rates might increase — or decrease, given that supplies of traditional and renewable energy are increasing.
Moreover, any price risk from buying energy should be compared to the numerous risks of constructing another city-owned hydroelectric plant and being stuck with the costs and uncertainties associated with it for 50 to 80 years. It's not as if there isn't a price issue with the plant itself; even now there is strong evidence that hydroelectricity will be more expensive than other renewable electricity.
Let's get greener now: Buy existing renewable energy from a
reliable source, shut down the hydroelectric-plant boondoggle, and, this being Aspen, prepare for the next one. "
(Learn more? Click title. Comment to discuss)
December 13, 2011
SandBox Comments: Aspen Times/Letter to the Editor "Make Aspen more bicycle friendly"
Hear! Hear!
The boondoggle that is the "We-Cycle" and Mirte Mallory and Philip Jeffreys is so unpopular with residents and commuting locals who work in Aspen every day (not to mention the taxpayers who're forced to pay for it) there is no way this is going to be a business that thrives.
And then there's that pesky uncomfortable truth of the bikes costing $6,000 each.
just sayin.
"While We-Cycle might appear to be just the thing, the numbers just don't work, and I can't imagine that the program is financially sound, given the assumptions. Poll a bike shop or two. Use a spreadsheet or the back of an envelope. The goals are laudable, and it's great to take advantage of federal funds. But when I work the numbers, I'm convinced the program will never break even.
Around here, suitable town bikes are nearly free! My current townie bike (with dead front shock and XT shifters) cost me a 12-pack! Isn't that about $6,488 less expensive per bike than the startup costs for We-Cycle?
I suggest we dedicate a couple of parking spots in the Rio Grande garage to bike parking and charge users a monthly fee to lock up a bike there. We can grow the service in response to demand. Fewer cars in town is a laudable goal, but there are many ways to achieve it.
Mike Tullar and others have suggested acquiring cheap bikes and painting them the same color for around-town rides. This solution would at least avoid the boondoggle of We-Cycle. But someone would still have to maintain those bikes. We should make it easy for those so inclined to have their own bikes in town. Why not make more bikes in town easy and scalable rather than hard, expensive and “failable”?
(Sam Cox/Basalt)
(Read more? Click title. Comment to discuss)
The boondoggle that is the "We-Cycle" and Mirte Mallory and Philip Jeffreys is so unpopular with residents and commuting locals who work in Aspen every day (not to mention the taxpayers who're forced to pay for it) there is no way this is going to be a business that thrives.
And then there's that pesky uncomfortable truth of the bikes costing $6,000 each.
just sayin.
"While We-Cycle might appear to be just the thing, the numbers just don't work, and I can't imagine that the program is financially sound, given the assumptions. Poll a bike shop or two. Use a spreadsheet or the back of an envelope. The goals are laudable, and it's great to take advantage of federal funds. But when I work the numbers, I'm convinced the program will never break even.
Around here, suitable town bikes are nearly free! My current townie bike (with dead front shock and XT shifters) cost me a 12-pack! Isn't that about $6,488 less expensive per bike than the startup costs for We-Cycle?
I suggest we dedicate a couple of parking spots in the Rio Grande garage to bike parking and charge users a monthly fee to lock up a bike there. We can grow the service in response to demand. Fewer cars in town is a laudable goal, but there are many ways to achieve it.
Mike Tullar and others have suggested acquiring cheap bikes and painting them the same color for around-town rides. This solution would at least avoid the boondoggle of We-Cycle. But someone would still have to maintain those bikes. We should make it easy for those so inclined to have their own bikes in town. Why not make more bikes in town easy and scalable rather than hard, expensive and “failable”?
(Sam Cox/Basalt)
(Read more? Click title. Comment to discuss)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)