Town Square

City to receive $1.6M in stimulus funding

Original post made on Mar 26, 2009

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo announced today that Mountain View will receive $719,000 in stimulus funding to go towards improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The money, combined with previous stimulus funding, brings the city's total to about $1.6 million.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, March 26, 2009, 1:42 PM


Like this comment
Posted by Paul D.
a resident of Shoreline West
on Mar 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm

$719K to cut greenhouse gases, and $714K for roads to burn more greenhouse gases....

Like this comment
Posted by Dave H.
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 26, 2009 at 6:01 pm

Well put, Paul D.!

And a big THANK YOU to all the working people who are (un)willingly reducing your paychecks through taxation to pay for all this stimulation.

Like this comment
Posted by Ned
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 26, 2009 at 8:20 pm

I agree. Well put Paul D. I say turn down the money and send it back to Washington to pay off the debt.

Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Mar 26, 2009 at 10:41 pm

Um, the 3 versions of Paul D all realize that better roads cut down on emissions, right?

Like this comment
Posted by Don Frances
Mountain View Voice Editor
on Mar 27, 2009 at 10:49 am

Don Frances is a registered user.

I think it's an interesting point, because our idea of stimulating the economy comes with increased greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in this paradox.

The New Yorker just ran a great commentary about it here:
Web Link

Here's a representative quote from it that kind of speaks to Paul D's point:

"...the world’s principal source of man-made greenhouse gases has always been prosperity. The recession makes that relationship easy to see: shuttered factories don’t spew carbon dioxide; the unemployed drive fewer miles and turn down their furnaces, air-conditioners, and swimming-pool heaters; struggling corporations and families cut back on air travel; even affluent people buy less throwaway junk. Gasoline consumption in the United States fell almost six per cent in 2008. That was the result not of a sudden greening of the American consciousness but of the rapid rise in the price of oil during the first half of the year, followed by the full efflorescence of the current economic mess."

Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Mar 27, 2009 at 11:19 am

At the same time, Don, improving technology, legislating emissions controls, etc, are to a large degree (for lack of a better word) luxuries. The Obama administration has-- unfortunately but appropriately-- toned down their environmental agenda for obvious reasons. In tough times, people are less likely to retire the old emission-belching car in favor of a cleaner-burning car-- as we know, even the SUV of today dumps less crud in the air than its predecessor of 10 years past.

True, an idle factory spews no pollution. But a struggling factory is less likely to upgrade equipment.

I have a hard time accepting the premise that there isnt a greater potential environmental benefit to a strong economy.

Like this comment
Posted by Randall Flagg
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 29, 2009 at 11:39 am

Why doesn't Mountain View try synchronizing the traffic lights, like they do in New York City? The less often cars have to stop, the less gas they burn.

Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 30, 2009 at 11:12 am

Unfortunately, but predictably, the Obama administration is throwing massive amounts of taxpayer money to increase the size of government. Instead of increasing general expenses, that money could have been used for investments in infrastructure assets that would have a lasting value and could even generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. Money spent now on wind and solar farms, geothermal, and other green energy sources would create good, long-term, living-wage, union construction jobs. It is a win-win for the economy, for workers, and for the environment.

I agree, though, that spending money that we don't have just to replace existing equipment with the same but slightly greener equipment is not a big win and is not likely to happen now.