Yeah I don't disagree with this, but I think the HBO is rats nest of bureaucracy. Two committees that will need to be staffed, a bunch of metrics and monitoring, and an entire rulemaking process. It feels like this ordinance is designed for a bunch of people to hit metrics and claim wins instead of being written for the people.
Yeah I don't disagree with this, but I think the HBO is rats nest of bureaucracy. Two committees that will need to be staffed, a bunch of metrics and monitoring, and an entire rulemaking process. It feels like this ordinance is designed for a bunch of people to hit metrics and claim wins instead of being written for the people.
I think a simple law that just mandates new construction meets zero-carbon criteria and old buildings are grandfathered in, but if they need to replace their boilers, etc then they have to shift to electric would be sufficient?
The problem is that leaves 80% of Evanston buildings on the table with no requirements. Is it so bad to make them improve the efficiency of their building incrementally over time? That's what the purpose of the multi year plan is. 5 years from now, do an audit, make sure your lights are upgraded, start budgeting to replace your 20-50 year old windows. Budget to replace your HVAC systems. So that when those systems fail or 5-10 years later, you're ready. The whole HBO is to have a concrete plan in place for owners instead of them waiting to do anything 25 years from now and then going oh crap, we didn't plan or save money and then people really will be pissed. The committee part is there to create the plan and help owners execute it. It's not just about more unnecessary bureaucracy.
Sure, I don't think this current iteration gets you there, though. I have nothing against everything you just described. I feel this way about Evanston Tree Law too - like I absolutely think it's important to the character of the City to protect as many trees as possible. But the rules they put in place requiring permitting if you do anything 25 feet from a tree, requiring a visit from the Evanston tree cop, etc are expensive and increase the time/costs for everyone to do anything.
I think this can be vastly simpler - forget about all the metrics and monitoring and committees and (likely non-existent) federal grants and carve outs, etc. That's just more jobs for consultants. Just say "here's the new rules, they go into effect in 10,15 and 25 years and they impact everyone, even single family homes. If you want to replace a gas boiler, you cannot do that anymore, it has to be electric. No more gas stoves as of 2032. etc" and apply to everyone.
This iteration just adds so much complexity to a simple problem and will clog everything up while Northwestern's lawyers grease the wheels
I don't disagree completely. I just think since the federal $ is still potentially on the table they should push forward. If that gets abandoned, then maybe go down that path you suggested. But there will have to be a lot of time and money by the city to come up wtih that which is why the federal dollars are important. It's not like the city has a bunch of time on their hands thanks to the disaster of EE45 and the proposed zoning changes and the horrible consultant they hired that they didn't do what they said they were going to. Evanston needs to come up with a way to actual make things happen instead of talking about it forever and paying consultants to not actually produce anything valuable. And this is coming from me, a consultant.
Also, don't get me started on the tree thing. Sure canopy coverage is good but when someone's tree is leaning over my garage and they want to take it down and the city says no, I'm honestly surprsied people haven't sued over that yet.
Yeah I don't disagree with this, but I think the HBO is rats nest of bureaucracy. Two committees that will need to be staffed, a bunch of metrics and monitoring, and an entire rulemaking process. It feels like this ordinance is designed for a bunch of people to hit metrics and claim wins instead of being written for the people.
I think a simple law that just mandates new construction meets zero-carbon criteria and old buildings are grandfathered in, but if they need to replace their boilers, etc then they have to shift to electric would be sufficient?
The problem is that leaves 80% of Evanston buildings on the table with no requirements. Is it so bad to make them improve the efficiency of their building incrementally over time? That's what the purpose of the multi year plan is. 5 years from now, do an audit, make sure your lights are upgraded, start budgeting to replace your 20-50 year old windows. Budget to replace your HVAC systems. So that when those systems fail or 5-10 years later, you're ready. The whole HBO is to have a concrete plan in place for owners instead of them waiting to do anything 25 years from now and then going oh crap, we didn't plan or save money and then people really will be pissed. The committee part is there to create the plan and help owners execute it. It's not just about more unnecessary bureaucracy.
Sure, I don't think this current iteration gets you there, though. I have nothing against everything you just described. I feel this way about Evanston Tree Law too - like I absolutely think it's important to the character of the City to protect as many trees as possible. But the rules they put in place requiring permitting if you do anything 25 feet from a tree, requiring a visit from the Evanston tree cop, etc are expensive and increase the time/costs for everyone to do anything.
I think this can be vastly simpler - forget about all the metrics and monitoring and committees and (likely non-existent) federal grants and carve outs, etc. That's just more jobs for consultants. Just say "here's the new rules, they go into effect in 10,15 and 25 years and they impact everyone, even single family homes. If you want to replace a gas boiler, you cannot do that anymore, it has to be electric. No more gas stoves as of 2032. etc" and apply to everyone.
This iteration just adds so much complexity to a simple problem and will clog everything up while Northwestern's lawyers grease the wheels
I don't disagree completely. I just think since the federal $ is still potentially on the table they should push forward. If that gets abandoned, then maybe go down that path you suggested. But there will have to be a lot of time and money by the city to come up wtih that which is why the federal dollars are important. It's not like the city has a bunch of time on their hands thanks to the disaster of EE45 and the proposed zoning changes and the horrible consultant they hired that they didn't do what they said they were going to. Evanston needs to come up with a way to actual make things happen instead of talking about it forever and paying consultants to not actually produce anything valuable. And this is coming from me, a consultant.
Also, don't get me started on the tree thing. Sure canopy coverage is good but when someone's tree is leaning over my garage and they want to take it down and the city says no, I'm honestly surprsied people haven't sued over that yet.