Full disclosure No. 1: I’m an avid environmentalist. I firmly believe in the science that proves climate change is the single most existential threat to our planet, our very existence. I actively as well as financially support such organizations as the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Green America, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Rainforest Action Network, the Environmental Defense Fund and, of course, the National Geographic Society. In short, I’m a “tree-hugger” and proud of it.
Some of the most precious moments of my life have been spent in our country’s national parks, celebrating their wonder, their very existence. And I have had the opportunity to spend time in every single one of them at least once. My two very special places of refuge are the Grand Canyon and Monument Valley (admittedly not a national park, but a national treasure just the same).
That’s why I am ashamed to learn that the city I now call home doesn’t agree with me. It appears city policy is now “Becoming a ‘Green City’ is not worth the investment,” even though facts demonstrate going green can save taxpayers money, can drastically reduce overall city expenditures.
If you haven’t already heard about it, let me introduce you to a program called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, a product of the U.S. Green Building Council. USGBC’s vision is “that buildings and communities will regenerate and sustain the health and vitality of all life within a generation. Our mission is to transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life.”
Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is readily apparent that the city of Kyle has adopted a policy doesn’t want a “environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life” for its citizens. Why? It appears they don’t think it’s worth the investment.
This near-sighted vision is not new to me. I hear many people say words like “The planet is not going to turn into an uninhabitable cinder block in my lifetime, so why should I care.” That, to me, is the same argument as “That kid ain’t going to support me in my old age so why should I invest my hard earned money in the brat’s college education.” My response? “YOU are not the subject of this conversation. The subject of this conversation is the future of that child that you helped to bring into this world.”
But, then, that’s a constantly repeating thought process I see in everyone involved in city planning, whether they be elected or staff. When they talk about the future, they look no further than, say, five years into the future; some, perhaps, 10. But no one, absolutely no one, looks beyond two generations into the future. And that’s why Kyle has adapted an environmentally unfriendly policy towards new construction or really anything involving the environment.
If it wasn’t so depressing, listening to city council members, past and present, talk about recycling would almost be laughable in its stupidity. They talk about it as if it were a commodity — about the possible ROI in selling recycled materials and the markets for these goods. Recycling is not about dollars, but about achieving the much desired goal of zero waste. But Kyle doesn’t care about achieving that goal. That’s why, for example, even with all the apartment complexes sprouting up all over the city, there is no recycling programs for Kyle residents living in multi-family complexes. Or, for Kyle businesses, for that matter.
The result is that all those recyclables are now going, with the rest of the trash, to the landfill. And, as the name implies, landfills eventually reach their capacity– they fill up. And, when that happens, a new landfill must be created somewhere else. And this “somewhere else” has to be many, many miles from any honest, G-d fearing, tax-paying U.S. citizen because, really, would you want a landfill anywhere near your home? And that means getting that trash from your home to that landfill involves traveling many, many more miles than before which means spending a lot more dollars on those transportation costs and that means … by now, you see where this is going … much higher utility bills. Not investing today costs taxpayers tomorrow.
This lack of a multi-family and a commercial recycling program proves what I said earlier: Kyle is only committed to keeping up appearances, but not to long-term environmental sustainability. The only alternative is even more horrible to contemplate: That there are, in fact, those in the city that think ahead in the long-term but are systematically ignored into silence or until they take their talents/abilities to the Sierra Club or the National Geographic Society.
Doing everything in its power to preserve and protect our environment, is what drives the USGBC and its LEED certification program, which has created a plan for constructing buildings that use less energy and water than non-certified buildings, avoid waste, save on maintenance costs, improve indoor air quality, offer added comfort to its occupants and create “less environmental burden on their community.” In short, over its life, a LEED certified municipal building will save taxpayers money.
But the City of Kyle doesn’t want to build them? Why? Because the construction cost of such a building is somewhat higher, even though the USGBC has proved over and over again those additional costs are quickly recouped through considerably reduced Operation and Maintenance costs (O&M costs, in the municipal jargon). And it’s those O&M costs that must be paid each year with moneys from the city’s General Fund, that fund that’s replenished annually with your property tax dollars.
Full disclosure No. 2: I voted against the city’s Proposition A, although not for the property tax reasons that were the motivations for just about everyone else’s “no” vote on this item. I voted “no” because I could not get the answer to one simple question: “Is the proposed public safety building going to be LEED certified?” I tried to get an answer. Several times. I’ll specifically mention two of them.
The city hired this PR firm, the Buie Co., to promote the passage of Proposition A. Now, the city will dispute that statement. They will say the firm was hired for “education activities.” But, you see, they have to say that because it’s illegal to use municipal taxpayer funds to promote the passage of a municipal bond program. It’s also illegal for elected municipal officials to use their position to promote the passage of a municipal bond program. But the Buie Co., under the guise of “educational activities,” somehow engaged Kyle City Council members to commit those illegal acts as well. Look, let’s be realistic here. No one hires a PR company for “education activities.” You hire educators for that. You hire PR companies to create opportunities with which to sell a product of some sort, predominantly through the use of free media. In fact, on its web page, Buie brags that “We have seen our proactive approach to community engagement facilitate communications, build common ground and bring together diverse stakeholders to mobilize support. Public relations is all about results. And, we get results.” In this case, Buie mobilized support to pass Proposition A and they got the results they were hired to get.
One of the first thing Buie concocted was this special web page where visitors could go and pose a question about the proposed police headquarters. So, of course, I went on there right away and posed my question: “Is the proposed public safety building going to be LEED certified?” Within 24 hours, I received a non-answer which was a form letter emailed to me which said, in effect, “We have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, but, hopefully, maybe, someday, we’ll come up with an answer to your question.” They never did. Never heard another word. But, like I said, they weren’t really there to provide answers, to actually “educate.”
One of Buie’s next stunts involved a series of virtual town hall meetings in which they described all the reasons why voters should approve Proposition A and then enlisted a city council member to go even further in promoting the bond proposal’s passage. In the virtual town hall meeting I attended, the unlucky city council member somehow convinced to commit these blatantly illegal acts was Alex Villalobos. Now, this is not meant to be a criticism of Villalobos. I’m convinced he’s probably what in some legal terms is known as “an unwitting accomplice” to the actual criminal activity. Anyway, at the end of his sales pitch, virtual attendees were offered the opportunity to pose questions. So, once again, I posed mine: “Is the proposed public safety building going to be LEED certified?” Seeing Villalobos hem and haw around trying to answer the question when it was obvious he had no idea what the question referred to, or, if he did, he didn’t want to get caught in the middle of an environmental thunderstorm, almost made be feel a little sorry for the guy. But, needless to say, I never got an answer.
And that, in short, is why I voted against Proposition A. I simply can’t support anything that (1) is going to be anti-environment, that (2) is going to facilitate climate change and (3) is, in the long run, going to result in a needless waste of taxpayers’ money. Dallas recently built a new police headquarters. Here is the first paragraph on that city’s web page devoted to that building: “The city of Dallas, Texas is committed to improving the quality of life for its citizens by providing healthier environments through its Green Building initiative. This commitment is exemplified by the Jack Evans Police Headquarters, which achieved a Silver certification under the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) program for new construction. The city adopted Silver LEED certification as a standard for all its new facilities in January 2003.”
You see, it is possible. Other cities care enough about their future and the health and well being of its employees and its citizens to take these steps. It’s a shame that Kyle has decided it does not want to be one of them.
I must also admit that I felt a sense of personal betrayal. In one of my earliest interviews with City Manager Scott Sellers he pledged that as long as he held that position the city would never, ever, construct a building that did not seek LEED certification. Now, here we are. Of course, there’s still time. The city can still decide it will try to build an environmentally friendly new police headquarters. And help with that may be on the horizon. During an extended telephone conversation I had with her the day after this past Tuesday’s election, new council member Yvonne Flores-Cale was quite passionate, quite convincing in her pro-environmental beliefs and activities. But then she will only be one of seven votes on the council.
And then there’s this, perhaps the final turn of the key destined to keep Kyle in environmental purgatory until it’s too late to protect future generations: During Wednesday’s city council meeting, the council voted unanimously to “award a professional services contract to Coleman and Associates for the landscape design of Mary Kyle Hartson Park and 104 S Burleson in an amount not to exceed $93,700.00.” The proposal Coleman and Associates presented the city contained 11 items, the 11th of which was titled “Exclusions.” The sixth listed “exclusion” was “LEED is excluded.”
I asked assistant city manager James Earp about this and he said “LEED, the actual certification, not just the principles, requires a significant amount of additional record keeping, paperwork, processes and the like that dramatically increase cost … If we want LEED certification the bid would have been dramatically understated.”
That, I guess, makes it official. Kyle’s policy is protecting the environment, protecting the long-term health and well-being of city employees along with the rest of the citizens of Kyle, is just too expensive today even if it means saving money as well as possibly saving lives in the future.
You’ll have to pardon me if I respectfully disagree.
