Who's going to pay for Mary’s “green” dreams?
September 18, 2008 · Updated 9:04 AM
I don’t disagree with Bill Slach, whose Sept. 17 letter (“What’s green about this?”) questions the wisdom of Independent columnist Mary Colborn’s stated desire to tear down her current house and replace it with a more environmentally sensitive structure (“I’m tearing it down, rebuilding it green,” Sept. 10).
I just wonder why he didn’t also question the expense of Mary’s pet project.
Normally when one builds a new house, they’ve first sold their old one, thus giving them (at least a big chunk of) the money they’ll need to pay for the construction.
But in Mary’s scheme, her old house will first be demolished, which would seemingly rule out the possibility of it being sold.
So unless Mary is independently wealthy — in which case her grand gesture has absolutely no application for those of us who aren’t — I fail to see how she’s going to finance all of this.
Unless, that is, she’s planning to apply for some sort of a government grant. In which case, again, her actions would have no application for anyone unable to similarly game the system.
But at least Mary would get a nifty new house out of it.
As has been amply demonstrated by the Port of Bremerton’s ill-advised Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) project, which Mary enthusiastically defends, we simply haven’t yet reached the point where all of this Buck Rogers environmental gadgetry can be economically viable without being subsidized by tax dollars.
We will certainly reach that point eventually, but I’d prefer to let the free market dictate when that day comes, not some half-baked social engineer hell-bent on advancing an environmentalist wacko agenda with my money.
Speaking for myself, I hope Mary really is filthy rich and planning to build her dream house with her own assets. It would still be an utterly meaningless gesture, but at least she wouldn’t be picking our pockets to make it.