Submitted by Steven Hall, Greenwich
Open Letter to members of the Greenwich Board of Estimate and Taxation
Dear BET members,
Becoming a resident in 1998 I assumed that the BET executed fiscal responsibility. And especially being the highly educated town of Greenwich I also assumed that decisions would be made, and especially so, when based on facts and particularly so if science driven.
For myself, with 17 years of education filled with courses of math and physics and engineering leading to a degree in architecture followed by science based Navy flight training and subsequent 175 carrier landings (successful I might add J) followed by a long career using building science in project management, I thought that decisions would be based on rational facts. Clearly I do believe in science and facts, but I have since learned this is not the case with Greenwich management.
Once again we are back with specious emotional almost cult speculations on restoring a building energy system that failed. Why and how it did is yet another conundrum of hard to understand mismanagement, but not now relevant, except I’m wondering if the same management can be trusted with a repaired system. There are open demonstrable facts in favor of geothermal systems.
I pioneered one for a home in Litchfield in 1995. It has since been the go-to system for high-end new homes. They now are in common municipal and CRE use, even in conversions in New York City use drilling below foundations.
Why? For multiple reasons and one that should be in the center of the BET ballpark, but seems elusive, cost. An energy committee report in 2019 estimated the town could save $2.5 million a year in energy efficiency that included use of geothermal. That would now be well over $15 million in savings today and the current chairman of EMAC reports we have gone in the opposite direction. One might think the BET would take note and act accordingly. I certainly expect that as a taxpayer.
Respected engineering forms have done reports both on CMS (but ignored) and now on Hamilton Avenue and recommended the least cost solutions of geothermal.
And then there are health and environmental concerns:
Health– It s plain common sense and science that the emissions from burning of fossil fuels are contaminants that should be avoided. To argue for doing so in a school for growing children when there is an less costly alternative that does not do so makes no sense.
And then there is the surrounding area that the State has designated as an Environmental Justice Distressed Area so the pollution impacts the entire area.
Environment – While horrific major weather disasters are now common in other regions we here on the coast as with Sandy in the past are a prime future target. While a member of BET does not believe the irrefutable science of global warming, I take the position of why take the chance especially if it costs less.
I just read that emails such as this may be from BOTS. I have been called many things, but never a BOT, but if you want to confirm I am not, just give me a ring.