Daily Score Blog

Moises Velasquez-Manoff of the Christian Science Monitor gets this exactly right:

[N]ot-very-glamorous changes like [compact fluorescents lightbulbs] as well as obsessively sealing and insulating your home will save more than, in the words of one expert, "greenie weenie" additions like green roofs and solar panels.

The whole article is worth reading. But in case you're too busy, here's the point in a nutshell:  if you really want to reduce the environmental impact of your home, do all the simple, boring things first.  Seal up holes with caulk, insulate, and buy efficient lights and appliances.  It's not sexy, it's not trendy, but it's important.

Once you're done with all the boring (but cost effective) stuff, you can think about the nifty high-tech energy solutions, like solar panels.  (Or, perhaps you'll do even more good by helping your neighbors do the simple stuff, too.)

The rains have set in. And with the approach of the holidays, the waning of the light, and the inevitable existential angst, Northwest homeowners turn their thoughts to the season's verities: turkey dinners, Christmas lights, and flooded basements.

But not me. This season it's all eggnog and overeating for me. (And existential angst, of course. That goes without saying.) 

That's because in a fit of uncharacteristic virtue, my wife, Jill, and I embarked on a backyard landscaping project last summer that's already paying dividends. And I think it's helping ease my home's environmental impact to boot.

Last January, I wrote a bit about my backyard and how soggy, even lake-like, it became in the rain. The heavy clay soil allowed worrisome amounts of water to pool up, turning the lawn into something resembling the Everglades. But rather than stocking my backyard lake with trout, as my Dad suggested, we vowed to landscape our way out of the problem.

Here's a perfect example of why pay-or-waive laws don't work. In the rural Oregon community of Prineville, a property owner filed a claim under Measure 37 demanding to be allowed to build his house on a specific portion of his property that's zoned otherwise. Instead of waiving the zoning law, the county council became the first in Oregon to offer taxpayer compensation instead: to the tune of about $47,000.

But that's not good enough for the property owner. Now he's coming back with a new proposal for a diner and condominiums on the restricted portion of his property. The choice he's giving the county is the same, but with higher stakes: pay him for the "lost" value of the buildings or waive the zoning. 

Now, it's not that he wants to build a diner and condos. That's hardly the point. He simply believes he can force the county to offer him more taxpayer money (he's talking about as much as $5 million) or, faced with that unpleasant option that they will waive the zoning for him. Either way, he'll come out the winner and his community will come out the loser.

And now a quibble with the media coverage. The Eugene Register-Guard posted a very misleading AP story. The story makes it sound as if Prineville's zoning prevents the fellow from building his house anywhere on his property. But that's not right. Under the zoning he's legally allowed to build almost anywhere on his land, just not with 200 feet of the rimrock, which is restricted from building inside city limits to preserve scenery.