Last week in Gilbert Town Council meeting, the town of Gilbert got a great example of what happens when we have a tea party-dominated council. The Solar Sleeve Project on the city’s light poles came up for a vote. This was a proven successful project and was given a green light by Mayor Lewis and two other council members, Ben Cooper and John Sentz.
This progressive step to have Gilbert save a quarter of million dollars over 15 years was stopped in its tracks by council members Daniels, Petersen, Cook and Ray. They denied the town of Gilbert moving forward in proven solar technology the city has been pursuing for years.
This is a prime example of what the future of Gilbert may look like with these types of votes coming from these people. They obviously do not want to move the town forward into the 21st century like most of our neighboring cities. It is real shame when one of the council members called solar a “failed technology.”
It is up to the majority of the Gilbert citizens to stand up to these people and express their displeasure with the backward direction they want to take the town of Gilbert.
John Chiazza
Gilbert
Engaged Voter posted at 1:00 pm on Fri, Aug 10, 2012.
"It is real shame when one of the council members called solar a “failed technology.”
Not just a shame, a travesty...we also have council members (outside of Gilbert) that want to dissolve all environmental laws on mining, - they claim they're not needed since the Earth is only 6,000 years old. (I wish I was making this up)
concernedvoter posted at 1:32 pm on Fri, Aug 10, 2012.
While Gilbert may be a lovely city to live in and raise a family, I think it's quite evident that Gilbert City Council (well, most of them anyway), has no desire to advance it's city much past the 1950's. Not sure how solar technology can be considered a "failed technology." Germany leads the way in using this "failed technology," and Gilbert, a city with approximately 300 days of sunshine can't install a few solar street lights! I might be simplfying the point a bit, but my neighbors use those solar yard lights and they seem to work just fine.
Arizona Willie posted at 1:46 pm on Fri, Aug 10, 2012.
Don't blame the council members.
Blame the voters that put them there.
And the media that brainwashes them.
And the owners of the media that direct it to push that ultra right wing mental illness.
And the educational system that failed to teach them to think logically.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:30 pm on Fri, Aug 10, 2012.
Having lived in Gilbert for almost a quarter century, I've noted the slow rise of the most conservative elements of this town, unified now around the TEA Party label. The town's always been conservative, but now the uberconservatives are motivated and show up at the polls. One of the problems with Gilbert politics is how quickly the town grew, with folks coming in who have little connection to the town. As long as the parks operate, the taxes are low, and the police and fired show up, those folks are satisified.
One result? According to the Republic, the average voter turnout in town elections over the last decade has been a paltry 14%. And a large majority of those 14% are the ones who are currently calling the shots.
The other 86%? Well, apparently they're not exactly motivated.
chatmandu002 posted at 9:56 pm on Fri, Aug 10, 2012.
John,
Wow, Gilbert would save a quarter of a million dollars over 15 years. Heck it will cost over a quarter of a million dollars to replace all the solar lights after 15 years. Why not just shut the lights off at 4am and save billions... LOL
Liberals can't stand it when democracy doesn't go their way.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:15 am on Sat, Aug 11, 2012.
First of all, the Letter Writer never gives the reader any facts.
1. How much would it cost the City of Gilbert to install these 1,150 "solar sleeves" ?
2. Since the City of Gilbert has 24,000 light standards what would that cost be to the tax-payer (you know, the "tea party" Citizens of Gilbert who "earn" an income instead of sitting on the couch watching Jerry Springer waiting for their Welfare Check from Uncle Same) ?
3. Was the $230,000.00 saved in 15 years on the 1,150 light standards or on all the 24,000 City of Gilbert light standards.
4.If my math is correct....dividing $230,000.00 by 15 years = $1,533.33 per year savings to the City of Gilbert...................."CHUMP CHANGE" (can you just imagine what the cost in "man hours" for the City of Gilbert Maintenance Workers ($22 per hour) would be to install just the ...."test number" of 1,130 would be ?????
onerebel posted at 5:01 pm on Sat, Aug 11, 2012.
Didn't the owner of the solar company try and bribe the counsil ? Sounds like the counsil may have had some facts about the actual cost of the lights the rest of us do not, and the Liberals are mad about not getting their way no matter the cost!
Mike McClellan posted at 5:25 am on Sun, Aug 12, 2012.
Read the article about the council's decision -- you'll find that one councilman argued that solar is a "failed technology."
Tell that to the neighbors across the street, who have solar cells across their roof and pay no utility bill.
Luddites on the council is a problem.
VofReason posted at 1:29 pm on Mon, Aug 13, 2012.
What would be the town council's motivation not to save money for the town if there were no downside? Is the assumption that becuase they are conservative, they would rather pay more money to fight against solar power? What would be the political motivation to say no to saving money?
Engaged Voter posted at 4:40 pm on Wed, Aug 15, 2012.
"What would be the political motivation to say no to saving money?"
Who knows?
But the Tea Party has been doing it for years, so why not ask them?