Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Costly Caulk
HOUSTON (KTRK) -- It's already cost you $2.5 million and tens of millions more will soon be heading out the door. Houston's City Hall is big on going green and so is the president, but wait until you see the bills. 13 Undercover's Wayne Dolcefino is back, watching out for your money. On Monday, we questioned why the city is paying nine bucks for a two dollar light bulb and why folks getting these free light bulbs can't screw them in themselves. Now, we focus on a simple tube of caulk. The power of good ol' Uncle Fester. You remember him. He lived with his Addams family in a haunted mansion. But what if Uncle Fester lived in a townhouse on Rosedale instead? Then Joyce Aquil probably wouldn't have needed the energy efficiency makeover that you paid for. I just know I got these things through the City of Houston. I'm a low-income senior citizen," said Joyce. The city put in those new energy saving light bulbs. Joyce calls them "squigglies."
"They may be energy efficient, but they are a little dull," said Joyce. "I'm squinting, but maybe Reliant isn't kicking me in the kneecaps." Most of her windows were caulked too. It helps keep the heat out. We showed Joyce the bill. "That seems much, but I don't know about caulking," said Joyce. You can by it by the case at The Home Depot. The good stuff costs about seven bucks a tube for 49 feet of caulk in this one tube.
So they needed to squeeze out about $40 worth of caulk around Joyce's windows. How much did that cost taxpayers? More than $1,100. The State of Texas has its own weatherization program outside the city limits. And caulk is one of their deals too. I wasn't aware of what other folks were doing," said Gavin Dillingham.
We are. The state paid just $7.50 for the entire tube of caulk and the labor to squeeze it on. Joyce's windows would have cost about $50. The nine dollar light bulbs she got from the city would have cost about two bucks at The Home Depot. City Hall says the prices were part of a contractor's low bid.
"It shows government spends taxpayer money almost at a whim," said Mike Sullivan of the Houston City Council. The city doesn't care that Joyce is just renting or that her landlord has $1 million in property and still gets to benefit from your tax money. "The property would be more valuable in a way, kind of, sort of, because it has all that insulating, energy-saving stuff," said Joyce. "We're focusing on the poor individual within the home, not the actual owner of the property," said Dillingham. Take, for instance, a new Energy Star ceiling fan. The price for the Harbor Breeze fan from the city's program was $219.45. "Seems a little high," said Dillingham. Especially since we could buy the same ceiling fan online for just $45. Even paying Lowe's installation price, we could have saved $70 on one fan. When we asked Dillingham if he would pay $219 for that ceiling fan, he replied, "I can install my own ceiling fans." The city put in five fans in this one house. That's more than $1,100. Back at Joyce's house, we see the energy efficiency refrigerator she got for free. The contractor got to mark up the price about $100. "Great refrigerator, but it cost too much," said Joyce. Your energy saving investment in Joyce's house was $4,920. Hope it really lowered Joyce's light bill.
"There is none. No difference," said Joyce. The city claims its weatherization program has saved folks about $700,000 already, with cuts of 12 to 20 percent on their light bills.
"None. Zero. Nada," said Joyce. It's not all tax money, but the money to pay for the fans, fridges and solar screens came out of your pocket, too -- $4.5 million. CenterPoint Energy was ordered to provide this stuff because of overcharging. Ironic, isn't it? Supporters say this is an investment that could someday cut the need for more power plants and lower bills for all of us. If you believe that, you'll love what we will tell you Wednesday on Eyewitness News at 10pm.
Wow. A program that is suposed to help an individual but is hurting the taxpayer's pockets? Hard to believe, and I say that with every intention of being sarcastic. After reading the article and watching the accompanying video there are some concerns that need to be addressed.
1. Do you feel that there needs to be more oversight of how the city of Houston is spending our money?
2. Do you feel that the cost of a project should be a factor if the project will only have that one-time intial cost and will later benefit the recipient? Why or why not?
3.Do you think that the City of Houston should do a better job of investigating projects that the contract out? Should the challenge the bidders or accept the price they are given?
"They may be energy efficient, but they are a little dull," said Joyce. "I'm squinting, but maybe Reliant isn't kicking me in the kneecaps." Most of her windows were caulked too. It helps keep the heat out. We showed Joyce the bill. "That seems much, but I don't know about caulking," said Joyce. You can by it by the case at The Home Depot. The good stuff costs about seven bucks a tube for 49 feet of caulk in this one tube.
So they needed to squeeze out about $40 worth of caulk around Joyce's windows. How much did that cost taxpayers? More than $1,100. The State of Texas has its own weatherization program outside the city limits. And caulk is one of their deals too. I wasn't aware of what other folks were doing," said Gavin Dillingham.
We are. The state paid just $7.50 for the entire tube of caulk and the labor to squeeze it on. Joyce's windows would have cost about $50. The nine dollar light bulbs she got from the city would have cost about two bucks at The Home Depot. City Hall says the prices were part of a contractor's low bid.
"It shows government spends taxpayer money almost at a whim," said Mike Sullivan of the Houston City Council. The city doesn't care that Joyce is just renting or that her landlord has $1 million in property and still gets to benefit from your tax money. "The property would be more valuable in a way, kind of, sort of, because it has all that insulating, energy-saving stuff," said Joyce. "We're focusing on the poor individual within the home, not the actual owner of the property," said Dillingham. Take, for instance, a new Energy Star ceiling fan. The price for the Harbor Breeze fan from the city's program was $219.45. "Seems a little high," said Dillingham. Especially since we could buy the same ceiling fan online for just $45. Even paying Lowe's installation price, we could have saved $70 on one fan. When we asked Dillingham if he would pay $219 for that ceiling fan, he replied, "I can install my own ceiling fans." The city put in five fans in this one house. That's more than $1,100. Back at Joyce's house, we see the energy efficiency refrigerator she got for free. The contractor got to mark up the price about $100. "Great refrigerator, but it cost too much," said Joyce. Your energy saving investment in Joyce's house was $4,920. Hope it really lowered Joyce's light bill.
"There is none. No difference," said Joyce. The city claims its weatherization program has saved folks about $700,000 already, with cuts of 12 to 20 percent on their light bills.
"None. Zero. Nada," said Joyce. It's not all tax money, but the money to pay for the fans, fridges and solar screens came out of your pocket, too -- $4.5 million. CenterPoint Energy was ordered to provide this stuff because of overcharging. Ironic, isn't it? Supporters say this is an investment that could someday cut the need for more power plants and lower bills for all of us. If you believe that, you'll love what we will tell you Wednesday on Eyewitness News at 10pm.
Wow. A program that is suposed to help an individual but is hurting the taxpayer's pockets? Hard to believe, and I say that with every intention of being sarcastic. After reading the article and watching the accompanying video there are some concerns that need to be addressed.
1. Do you feel that there needs to be more oversight of how the city of Houston is spending our money?
2. Do you feel that the cost of a project should be a factor if the project will only have that one-time intial cost and will later benefit the recipient? Why or why not?
3.Do you think that the City of Houston should do a better job of investigating projects that the contract out? Should the challenge the bidders or accept the price they are given?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Researchers create car parts from coconuts...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090106113005.htm
Interesting article. A team of Baylor University researchers have found a possible alternative use for the fibers from coconuts husks. "The Baylor researchers have developed a technology to use coconut fiber as a replacement for synthetic polyester fibers in compression molded composites. Specifically, their goal is to use the coconut fibers to make trunk liners, floorboards and interior door covers on cars, marking the first time coconut fibers have been used in these applications."
1. Do you think that this new use for coconuts will create a viable market for coconut farmers?
2. Would you buy a vehicle that is considered "greener" such as a vehicle that utilizes coconuts specifically over another that does not used recycled material? Why?
3. Do you feel that we have made progress in attempting to discover alternate uses for everyday items? Do you feel that this will promote the reduction of waste and promote greener living?
Interesting article. A team of Baylor University researchers have found a possible alternative use for the fibers from coconuts husks. "The Baylor researchers have developed a technology to use coconut fiber as a replacement for synthetic polyester fibers in compression molded composites. Specifically, their goal is to use the coconut fibers to make trunk liners, floorboards and interior door covers on cars, marking the first time coconut fibers have been used in these applications."
1. Do you think that this new use for coconuts will create a viable market for coconut farmers?
2. Would you buy a vehicle that is considered "greener" such as a vehicle that utilizes coconuts specifically over another that does not used recycled material? Why?
3. Do you feel that we have made progress in attempting to discover alternate uses for everyday items? Do you feel that this will promote the reduction of waste and promote greener living?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Who do you belong too?
After reading the book Next, I decided to create a short video based upon one of the elements of the story. I had a little trouble posting it, but I think that I have it worked out. Click the link below.
Body of my own
Body of my own
Governer Perry kills coyote....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042704373.html
Coyotes beware. Perhaps joggers you should beware as well. Governor Perry has a gun.
After reading the article from the Washington Post I am left with some concerns;
1. "Perry said he will carry his .380 Ruger - loaded with hollow-point bullets - when jogging on trails because he is afraid of snakes. He'd also seen coyotes in the undeveloped area." Wow. a .380 with hollow tip bullets? Those bullets would blast a hole in a bear let alone a snake...So that leads me to question do you believe the Governor's reason for carrying the gun is truly because he is scared of snakes?
2. Do you think that it is safe for someone to participate in an activity such as jogging while carrying a loaded weapon in the waistband of their clothes? (Who does that?)
3. Do you feel that the Governor was justified in killing the coyote? Explain your thoughts.
Coyotes beware. Perhaps joggers you should beware as well. Governor Perry has a gun.
After reading the article from the Washington Post I am left with some concerns;
1. "Perry said he will carry his .380 Ruger - loaded with hollow-point bullets - when jogging on trails because he is afraid of snakes. He'd also seen coyotes in the undeveloped area." Wow. a .380 with hollow tip bullets? Those bullets would blast a hole in a bear let alone a snake...So that leads me to question do you believe the Governor's reason for carrying the gun is truly because he is scared of snakes?
2. Do you think that it is safe for someone to participate in an activity such as jogging while carrying a loaded weapon in the waistband of their clothes? (Who does that?)
3. Do you feel that the Governor was justified in killing the coyote? Explain your thoughts.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Finders Keepers, Losers weepers.....
Readers,
In the novel "Next" by Michael Crichton, the book begins with the story of Frank Burnet who contracted an aggresive form of leukemia and underwent four years of intese treatment. He is later told that he needs to come back in for "testing" and is led to believe that the cancer has returned. He continues to attend these checkups for the next four years. He later learns that checkups were a pretext for researching the genetic basis of his successful response to treatment, and that the physician's had sold the rights in Frank's cells to BioGen, a biotechnology company. The book opens with Frank suing the University for unauthorized misuse of his cells unsuccessfully. The judge in the case rules that the cells were "waste" and that the university could dispose of as it wished.
The term emminent domain is defined as the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen'a private property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development.
So readers, do you see the government owning our bodies in the near future? Do you see them possibly utilizing "eminent domain" for the greater good of society? Can you think of a situation that you would support excercising eminent domain over another person and their body? What are your thoughts on this topic? Do share.
In the novel "Next" by Michael Crichton, the book begins with the story of Frank Burnet who contracted an aggresive form of leukemia and underwent four years of intese treatment. He is later told that he needs to come back in for "testing" and is led to believe that the cancer has returned. He continues to attend these checkups for the next four years. He later learns that checkups were a pretext for researching the genetic basis of his successful response to treatment, and that the physician's had sold the rights in Frank's cells to BioGen, a biotechnology company. The book opens with Frank suing the University for unauthorized misuse of his cells unsuccessfully. The judge in the case rules that the cells were "waste" and that the university could dispose of as it wished.
The term emminent domain is defined as the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen'a private property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development.
So readers, do you see the government owning our bodies in the near future? Do you see them possibly utilizing "eminent domain" for the greater good of society? Can you think of a situation that you would support excercising eminent domain over another person and their body? What are your thoughts on this topic? Do share.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
"Next"...Scared Straight
If you have never read Next by Michael Crichton, I suggest you do.
"Is a loved one missing some body parts? Are blondes becoming extinct? Is everyone at your dinner table of the same species?" This is the opening of the book that serves not only as a delicious teaser, but prepares you to enter the world that Crichton has masterfully weaved. Flip a few pages and you are warned that "this book is fiction, except for the parts that aren't." The book has several subplots but is primarily focused on the story of a four year old boy named Dave, who suffers from a fictious disease called Gandler-Kreukheim. Among his symptoms are excessive hairiness and a talent for climbing trees. Why? Because Dave is a transgenic creature, part human and part chimpanzee. He was created in a laboratory by a scientist who, in the course of research on autism, inserted his own genes into a chimpanzee embryo. The researcher hoped to create and then dissect a fetus, but things got a little out of hand.
As the book continues with the oddities, we are shown just what our world might come to. Girls given fertility drugs so that they may sell their eggs to the highest bidder, insurance companies dropping clients because of a gene found in relatives, (thanks to President Obama for preventing this with the new healthcare law), even criminals using genetic testing as a defense to prove that they carry a certain gene that predisposes them to crime.
As I dwelved further into the book I began to understand the aforementioned warning. Though the author has indeed created these fictitious events, many are replays of real events, greatly understating the book’s scary legitimacy.
Pick up a copy and read it for yourself. Just make sure it is during the daytime.
"Is a loved one missing some body parts? Are blondes becoming extinct? Is everyone at your dinner table of the same species?" This is the opening of the book that serves not only as a delicious teaser, but prepares you to enter the world that Crichton has masterfully weaved. Flip a few pages and you are warned that "this book is fiction, except for the parts that aren't." The book has several subplots but is primarily focused on the story of a four year old boy named Dave, who suffers from a fictious disease called Gandler-Kreukheim. Among his symptoms are excessive hairiness and a talent for climbing trees. Why? Because Dave is a transgenic creature, part human and part chimpanzee. He was created in a laboratory by a scientist who, in the course of research on autism, inserted his own genes into a chimpanzee embryo. The researcher hoped to create and then dissect a fetus, but things got a little out of hand.
As the book continues with the oddities, we are shown just what our world might come to. Girls given fertility drugs so that they may sell their eggs to the highest bidder, insurance companies dropping clients because of a gene found in relatives, (thanks to President Obama for preventing this with the new healthcare law), even criminals using genetic testing as a defense to prove that they carry a certain gene that predisposes them to crime.
As I dwelved further into the book I began to understand the aforementioned warning. Though the author has indeed created these fictitious events, many are replays of real events, greatly understating the book’s scary legitimacy.
Pick up a copy and read it for yourself. Just make sure it is during the daytime.