On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:42:52 GMT, "Texensis"
wrote:

"Terry Horton" wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:40:32 GMT, "Texensis"
| wrote:
|
| "Mike Dahmus" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On 16 Apr 2003 14:55:57 -0700, (ctt) wrote:
| snip|
| | A lot of people seem to think that "push mower" means "gas
powered
| | mower that is not self-propelled".
| |
| | ---
|
| And just why does the City sell those nasty little electric mowers
on
| the cheap and not do anything about discount hand-mowers?
|
| Good question. Both would reduce VOCs.
|
| It's just as stupid as the fact that the City gives breaks on
| air-conditioning to people who already have it but does nothing
about
| cheap fans for those who don't.
|
| The city subsidizes replacement of wasteful air conditioners instead
| of building more fossil fuel-fired generating facilities to run
them.
| At least that's the theory.

The City helps buy a.c. units that would have been bought anyhow,
because the old, existing one needed replacement--virtually any new
unit is better than an existing one.

Maybe it's changed, but used to be you couldn't just plop down a
replacement unit. The house had to be insulated, weatherized, leak
checked, solar screens installed to qualify for the city program. The
conservation incentive is I think key to the program's benefit.

People who don't have a.c. or who have old, inefficient a.c. that still
works will keep the status quo, because the City subsidy goes to
people who can already afford a new unit, not to people for whom
the subsidy is not enough to make a difference.

A definite issue. You have to apply for the loan like any other and
meet credit and income requirements. This will definitely exclude some
low income families that might benefit. OTOH, anyone living in a
leaky house with an old a/c is probably going to save more money each
month on electricity than you'll spend making payments on the loan.

Bottom line though, is it good deal for us as citizens and taxpayers?