Home / Blogs / Junad Rizki's blog / Natural Gas cost by winter to triple? $3.00 per therm and the city of Evanston to profit?
Natural Gas cost by winter to triple? $3.00 per therm and the city of Evanston to profit?
Today in talking to the gas company - I was told they are thinking the price of Natural Gas may reach $3.00 a therm by this winter.
The current price is $1.45 a therm, on my last bill it was $1.24. Remember a winter ago people where upset at $1.10 a therm.
That means bills that may be typically $200.00 to $300,00 in January may approach a $1,000 for one month of gas use. The city of evanston
is taxing our bills at 5.15% thus if you have a thousand dollar bill the city will see $51 in tax. Given our sales tax is the highest around now at 10%.
I have to wonder when some of the taxpayers here are going to wake up and demand change? Maybe not?
Maybe some of our council members will come up with new ideas for affordable housing- given a very large number of citizens here are going to have a
very hard time keeping the homes they are in now. - its called affordable taxes!!
Junad -
The old Marywood building and the Dawes house really do eat up a lot of money in utilities. At the Dawes place, just keeping the building warm enough to prevent water pipes from bursting in winter probably eats up a lot of money. Does EHC want to spend its money on heating the Dawes House, or on education and research? That is the question.
Now to your issue:
By the way - are you concern about the real issue in my posting - the price for Therm and the fact the city is taxing us at 5.15%?
Well, if the city doesn't tax heating, it will just find some other source of revenue. Do I think that Evanston spends too much, and taxes are too high? Yes. But if the question is about the distribution of the tax burden - is taxing energy a good idea? Yes!
Now you are talking about energy costs - what basis do you have to suggest such high costs for building you do not have any energy bills? Your opinion again
I know you are not an energy expert. Ofcourse we all know older buildings will use more energy than a energy efficient building - that is a given -but your silly point that these buildings need to be replaced because of energy cost are really pure nonsense - The civic Center ( Marywood) would cost millions to replace -thus please give be the economic analysis showing the energy savings in its replacement. Here again you are making statements will little real back up - just like putting an IHOP at the Civic Center - another idea with so little merit.
I would suggest you do an analysis of taxes in this town - and find out how much the city is taxing - taxing energy is not a great idea since it has a large effect on those with modest incomes. Yes it force conservation - but tripling the price and adding the city taxes on top clearly harms residents of modest means - ofcourse you most support affordable housing since you want to help those who can't pay their energy bills -by giving them a home.
One should not forget that money is also a scarce resource. Just because the city and county can tax property owners does not mean it is renewable. As with energy, there can be savings by reducing city expenses.
Bill may be annoyed for mentioning this, but the recent Evanston Roundtable has an article by Galland, an architecet, and Revelle, an environmental proponent, delineating in detail the energy differences between rehabbing the Civic Center and demolishing the present building and replacing it with a new building.
From a green perspective, keeping the present building is the most environmentally favorable. Not only will the energy invested in the present building be lost, but additional energy will be expended in its demolition and disposal. Not even the savings with the most green LEED new structure, which will consume additional energy in its construction and material, make up in savings what will be lost. So from an environmental perspective rehabbing the present is environmentally optimum.
BTW the city finances are so bad that it does not have the $50 to $60 million for a new one.
Thus from an economic and environmental perspective rehabbing is the obvious way to go.
Here again you are making statements will little real back up - just like putting an IHOP at the Civic Center - another idea with so little merit.
Oh Junad, there you go again.
First, you should know better than to accuse Mr. Who Knows of 'making statements with [little] real back up'. Unlike Mimi, who just makes up facts like 'Robie House is in Oak Lawn' , Mr. Who Knows always researches his topics. You have chosen to ignore my detailed research about the dispute between EHS and City Council back in 1959.
So, Junad, you wrote "what basis do you have to suggest such high costs for building you do not have any energy bills? "
Here is my basis, Junad: the EHC, as a non-profit organization, fills out an IRS for 990, "Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax". These are public information. Mr. Who Knows has examined the document filed by the Evanston Historical Society for the period Jul 1 2005 to Jun 30 2006.
Here is what I see:
Utilities (line 43g) $21,621
Insurance (43f) $12,615
Now utilities do not include telephone, as that is on line 34 ( $5682).
As I recall, the winter of 2005/2006 was rather mild, and we all know that utility costs have increased quite a bit since then, and now you, Junad, suggest that they will go even higher.
What is the annual budget of EHC? Around $125K, if I recall correctly. ( Paul G., you are listed as the treasurer -- please fill us in with any details.)
Is the sole, or primary, goal of the EHC to promote history (research and teaching), or to preserve an old building? According to the Form 990, the mission is "To collect, preserve, exhibit, and interpret the history of the City and Township of Evanston and vicinity" (Statement 7). So, besides 'preserving' and old building and 'exhibiting' a collection of dresses, are they really fulfilling that mission? Shouldn't they spend more of their money and efforts on collecting, exhibiting, and interpeting history instead of on utilities and repairs?
Junad, I will be happy to send this document to you. Better yet, you can obtain it yourself at www.guidestar.org .
And a more important question, Junad, is what Charles Dawes represents. The more research that I have done on him, the more I learn about his pandering to the Klan in 1924, the less I like him. Even by the intolerant standards of 1924, Dawes' pandering to the Klan was roundly denounced - and really, it wasn't even necessary, since Coolidge and Dawes would have won by a landslide anyway. African-Americans at that time - those who were permitted to vote - were fiercely loyal Republicans, and Dawes abandoned them just to help an ally win a gubernatorial race in Maine. ( A sign of things to come, as the GOP became the party of Goldwater and Helms, while the Democrats became the party of Humphrey and Obama. )
The EHC biography of Dawes completely omits this little episode in Dawes' life. Why?
Charles Dawes represents the old, intolerant, closed-minded Evanston. I don't like him, and I don't like his house. The old Evanston was insular and isolationist ( like Dawes, who opposed American involvement against Hitler). I want Evanston to be tolerant , open-minded, and welcoming of people from out of town or from other countries.
IHOP - the International House of Pancakes - represents this spirit of tolerance and open-mindedness. Contrary to your claim, Junad, I did not suggest putting an IHOP at the Civic Center. That is where the Costco will go. I want IHOP at the Kendall site.
Mr IHOP - how are you comparing a high cost for energy? I think you stated you lived a condo - old or new your energy cost would be quite small compared to a house. We all know that the Dawes house would have a high cost of utilities than a new building.
Mr Who - I recall someone who lived in a large older home here told me his gas bill one month was $1,000. so the Dawes house may not be too unique as an older large home in town as far as energy cost -
Mr Who - I am all for the truth about Charles Dawes - good, bad and indifferent -
attackng Dawes who is long gone to try to claim the collection should not be in the house - is not valid.
As for his house - it is a piece of history of the time - like it or not - putting all the items from the house somewhere else would cleanly lessen the impact of the collection. No matter where the collection goes you will still be paying utility costs and repairs - since it has to be housed somewhere.
You continue to not really get it - there is not enough street traffice by the civic center or Kendal college for the commerical uses you are suggesting - if you were involved in the Civic Center you would have known all the city was proposing at the time was to create high density condo use for the site which was not in matching the neighborhood - hoping to sell the land at a profit to build a new Civic center - which we all know is not going to happen.
Junad -
While it was certainly not your intention, you have demonstrated once again why it is simply not reasonable to maintain large white elephants that are not energy efficient. Specifically, the City needs to consider moving its offices out of the old Marywood Academy site and into a newer, more fuel efficient setting. Also, the EHC needs to think about whether they want to spend their money heating the giant white elephant Dawes McMansion, or should they move to a smaller, more accessible site that would better serve their mission.
If you understood any thing about energy conservation - you would not make such statements about the Dawes house - just like you talk about the fire report in a misleading manner - now you think the building is some type of energy hog.
This building has very limited use - so the amount of energy it is going to use would be small - yes it would cost more than a new building that was designed for maximum energy efficiency - but very few new building here are all that well designed for minimum energy use.
By the way - are you concern about the real issue in my posting - the price for Therm and the fact the city is taxing us at 5.15%?
Post new comment