[Nameplate] Fair ~ 70°F  
High: 73°F ~ Low: 48°F
Friday, May 6, 2016

Does the public support a "greener" Greencastle?

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Readers of the Banner Graphic are nearly split on their feelings toward Greencastle Mayor Sue Murray's "green" initiative.

The Banner Graphic's online poll asked readers: "What do you think about Greencastle Mayor Sue Murray's efforts to provide for a 'greener' city such as the installation of new energy-efficient street lights?"

The choices for answers were: 1. I think she's on the right track. 2. I worry about the cost. 3. There are more important issues facing the city.

A total of 523 votes were cast. Of those, 42.1percent (or 220 voters) felt Mayor Murray is on the right track.

Secondly, 5.9 percent (or 31 voters) were worried about the cost and finally, 52 percent (or 272 voters) say there are more important issues facing the community.

Here are some of your comments left at the bottom of the poll question.:

* The curent lights don't make me choke or have teary eyes or cause me to use more gas. $107,000 is a lot of money for 29 lights and poles and what is the cost of the benches and why pour so much money into the downtown?

* I think there are too many other issues that need addressed, then think green. I rather have the pot holes and roads fixed before I see new lights!

* I hope she is able to keep the costs in mind when making decisions--I don't want to see the city go into debt over it. If the money is there, then fine.

* It's great that we have leaders thinking about long term economic and ecological benifits.

* We're out here living on gravel roads because there is no money to pave them, but the "city folk" have money for new street lights??? It makes no sense to me.

* Over time they will pay for themselves

* It's great idea to think ahead and the little things we all do add up!

* Energy efficiency is not just - or most importantly - a way of making Greencastle "greener". As the expression goes, "It's the economy, stupid." Not pursuing energy efficiency simply means continuing to waste large amounts of money that could easily be saved. As for other important issues facing the city - this is a false dilemma. Saving money on energy will only make it easier to accomplish the other things that matter to Greencastle residents. Go Sue!

* Mayor Murray is asking us to move in the right direction in so many ways. I'm glad she's mayor. We've made many strides already in the short time she's been in office.

* This would ultimately save the city money and serve as a model for those who live here and nearby.

* Total waste of taxpayer money, but popular with the greenies

* I think this is a good and worthwhile project, while the town does face other important issues, notably public transportation.

* I support any efforts to "green up" Greencastle!

* Indeed, there may well be more important issues, perhaps, but they don't preclude us acting on this front us as well.

* This is a great idea and the right direction for the city to go! GREENcastle living up to its name!

* With the cost of energy going up so quickly, it seems likely that it won't take long for the savings to surpass the cost.

* Environmental concerns are the most all-encompassing of today's issues, and every little bit that Greencastle can do to become a bit greener does make a huge difference.

* This will save the city money in the long-run and will be so easy to do.

* Widespread support for these initiatives can help us become stronger as a community--both Greencastle and DePauw, alike.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on bannergraphic.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I'm all for making this country/city beautiful, but there are so many other things that could be done around here to make it better before spending money on lights that work perfectly fine right now. Don't fix what isn't broke! There are roads that need paving, sidewalks that need fixing, people that need help, taxes that need lowering..........I could go on and on. Why fix up downtown when no one wants to go there? There is no place to park!! When the time comes I say tear down the court house and put in a parking lot!! Then maybe people will shop downtown and want to spend time there.

-- Posted by citizen24 on Thu, Jul 24, 2008, at 8:38 AM

Hmmm, I can see both sides of the argument. I would think that if the cost per light could be negotiated at the same rate for lesser numbers, the city could make the changeover gradualy and address other problems at the same time. If the new lights turn out to be less beneficial, higher costs for maintenance, less aesthetic in appearance, etc., the mistake would be less costly and more money would be available to fix other problems now. Energy is not the only thing that is rapidly rising in cost.

-- Posted by westforty on Thu, Jul 24, 2008, at 10:34 AM

C'mon Mayor, there are more important things than fancy LED street lights. Take a look at our roads, especially the county roads and you will find a much better way of spending the tax payers money!

-- Posted by itsjustme on Thu, Jul 24, 2008, at 11:54 AM

I agree with citizen24. "Going green" is a wonderful idea...but Ms Murray is using way too much of taxpayer green for a purchase that is not cost effective. It seems that her inexperience may have influenced her to be so extravagant...at taxpayer expense. I am no longer a resident of your city...but I pay property taxes....OUTRAGEOUS property taxes I should say! Remember this next election!

-- Posted by ExHoosier on Thu, Jul 24, 2008, at 6:20 PM

Even though the city can not pay directly to provide county services like paving roads, it is in their best interest to work with the county in using resouces wisely. The city's economy is reliant on those living outside of the city's limits too. When faced with a choice, I would prefer to drive my vehicle on a paved road to Danville, Avon, or Plainfield to spend my consumer dollars, rather than navigate the "travel at your own risk" gravel roads to Greencastle.

-- Posted by wishfulthinker on Thu, Jul 24, 2008, at 7:44 PM

i can tell you LED lights are not needed when there is so much needed in Greencastle. Streets broken, sidewalks cracked and raised, aging police cars, low paid police and firemen, and the list goes on. Gas 4.00 a gallon, food proces rocketing, staple goods prices soaring, Auto makers laying off will ripple down to the local plants, Dixie Chopper laying off. Housing down, taxes soaring, school books pricing out of sight, entertainment and eating out way to expensive and it goes on. For all these reasons we don't need to spend money we don't have on LED lights we don't need. Green is a right concept but just as and example it would cost above 50 thousand dollars to put in a windmill to generate enough money to run the average home. Then if you had the money, a place to put the windmill and enough wind to generate the electricty it would take around 21 years to pay for the thing assuming your average bill was 200.00 dollars a month and you were able to substain enough wind to generate all the power you needed. So in most cases " Green" is a good ideal but not feasible

-- Posted by Trying hard on Sat, Jul 26, 2008, at 10:35 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: