ARGUMENT #2

ARGUMENT #2 The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.

“In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.”

The idea that you have to spend money to make money, or in this case save money, is not at all a ridiculous notion. And energy-efficiency in the twenty-first century is definitely an environmentally-responsible decision…but also a costly one! This, along with a number of other blatant oversights, is why the new Rockingham town hall argument is about as viable as rolling down the windows in your car during the winter to stay warm – it’s just not going to work!

The argument does not consider the costs appropriately.

Firstly, there is the cost of tear-down and disposal of the existing building. What kind of investment will it be to tear down and dispose of an old building? In a century-old building, it’s quite possible some hidden expenses would be discovered in the process – namely, asbestos! If found, the removal of asbestos would be an extremely expensive task. Secondly, what is the cost of constructing a new building? Construction prices are continually on the increase, as well as interest rates for loans and mortgages. Will the savings of a new energy-efficient building be more than the monthly payment and interest on a new building? And while it may cost less per square foot to heat and cool the new building, will the total cost be less? If the new town hall is larger, it’s quite likely that heating and cooling will cost more! The paper mentions saving a considerable amount of money to be the reason for the new town hall, but since the only savings would come from the efficiency of the new building (and would likely be merely theoretical), and since getting to that point would be a costly investment, another weakness of the argument is exposed:

The argument does not consider the options appropriately.

Any building that is a century old, and particularly a town hall, can be considered historical. Being historical, is there any financial support the city of Rockingham can receive from historical societies for the preservation of the building? And have all “greening” options been explored for the town hall? Energy-efficent light bulbs, windows, and insulation are all considerably-cheaper expenditures for saving money than the construction of an entirely new building – and often times, such “greening” steps can qualify buildings for certain tax-breaks, meaning more money saved! An option for reducing heating and cooling costs could be to promote “green” working conditions, i.e., allowing employees to wear sweaters in the winter instead of turning the heat up, and allowing employees to wear short-sleeves in the summer instead of cranking the A/C. A less positive, but more immediate solution for saving money – especially considering there are more employees than the town hall can comfortable accommodate – would be to reduce the number of employees. And finally, saving money and generating income are completely different topics. There are surely many viable options for generating income that don’t involve the expenditure of a new building for renting purposes.

If the city of Rockingham wants a new town hall, they should just decide to spend the money and build it, rather than proffering excuses “peppered” with “green” qualifiers and logic that lacks even the remotest amount of foresight.