Re: Energy savings & safety, was: security in cohousing
From: Bitner/Stevenson (lilbertearthlink.net)
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:36:04 -0600 (MDT)
I didn't mean to discount the energy and efficiency aspects of your well 
considered post. You're right, of course. I'm surprised you haven't
mentioned water conservation, as that must be a part of your plans. I guess
it didn't really go with the whole "safety" theme. Would you care to let us
in on any interesting ideas your group has?
--
Liz Stevenson
Southside Park Cohousing
Sacramento, California

----------
>From: Joe Gotobed <jgotobed [at] LPL.Arizona.EDU>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <cohousing-l [at] freedom.mtn.org>
>Subject: Energy savings & safety, was: security in cohousing
>Date: Sun, Aug 1, 1999, 9:15 PM
>

>
> The responses to the "security in cohousing" thread make it clear we
> all agree community is the most effective security. That is the primary
> reason our family is involved in the Sonoran CoHousing project here in
> Tucson.
>
> While I agree with Liz's statement "there is no such thing as safe"
> it's important to try. I advocate automated systems for safety and
> energy savings and simply note they can be extended to other uses.
>
> Fire safety. Smoke alarms are essential and I'd like to be able to hear
> my neighbors' alarm as well as my own. Ours CoHo will have ten three &
> four-plexes. So in addition to the inside horns that wake you from your
> sleep, one more on the outside of the building wakes the neighbors.
> Make sure it's high enough off the ground to avoid tampering.
>
> Energy efficiency. Interior lighing is a big heat load. Leaving lights
> on more than needed wastes energy and adds cooling costs to counter the
> heat (I live in a desert). Doors/windows left open also increase
> utility bills. Door and window sensors along with motion sensor light
> switches (with an on-off overide) will all be paid for by their energy
> savings. This is based on current utility costs (which may well rise
> over time).
>
> A growing number of lenders are willing to listen to this simple
> pitch.  If you lend me the money for the efficiency foo-foo the utility
> bill reductions will more than pay the increased mortgage.  You're
> simply offering to send the bank some of what you save from the gas &
> electric folks. They like that.
>
> Extending these safety and energy savings devices to perform as alert
> systems is not complicated and very reliable. I may be a *bit* biased
> due to twenty years as a computer-geek but my 5 yearold can turn our
> alarm on & off and the three yearold could if we'd thought to put the
> panel lower on the wall.  If it was on the outside next to the door
> then it could unlock the door for you too. They are used routinely
> on autos now which is far more demanding than residential use.
>
> Many homeowners insurance policys are less if you have a "security"
> system.
>
> It's certainly true that "security" systems don't make you safe.
> Reliable ones alert the community (with few false alarms) to the
> presence of burgulars that might otherwise be missed. As a consequence,
> word gets around among the thieves, and your space is less of a
> target.
>
> Quality designs do not have the horn where the bad guys can silence
> it.  The buildings' fire horn, out of reach and easy to see, can do
> this duty.
>
> Of course I've not talked my neighbors into any of this :-)... by &
> large we're just struggling to keep prices in line & get built. The
> extra $1,000 may only be spent by my family when it's all said & done.
> And if I only reap the energy savings and never set off the fire alarm
> that would suite me just fine. If my teenager is so clueless as to set
> of the alarm I've got a real problem :-). Yikes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joe Gotobed
> 

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.