If you take a look at the artist's drawings of what the buildings at Ponte Vista might look like, you get the feeling that their style and design will flow from one building to another.
But today is January 1, 2007, Happy New Year, and at least one new law, effective today, just might change the designs of the last buildings to be constructed at Ponte Vista, should any actually be built.
Senate Bill 1 became law today. Basically, it requires developers of large housing developments to offer solar-electric systems on new homes after January 1, 2011.
If Mr. Bisno plans to have all the facades and roof lines look similar from the first building to the final one built, it looks like he has less than four years to get all of them built before design changes are mandated.
Perhaps Mr. Bisno will "think green" and modify all the building designs to incorporate solar-electric systems on all the building proposed for his project.
15 comments:
Fat chance....that might cost Bisno more money! Besides, the escape clause is 2011.
yes, but not much more. with federal and state incentives, a project of this size might be able to receive a sizable amount of money from the government to install energy efficient solar cell roofs.
on the other hand, we could always just colonize more countries and take their natural resources.
It is my opinion Anonymous 7:33 PM, that our most recent effort to colonize (invade) a country for its natural resources has been met with dismal failure and too many Americans coming back home in flag-draped coffins.
On the other hand, if natural resources you are concerned with, are opium poppys, then that invasion has proved very effective in not limiting the exportation of that resource, in many forms, all over the world!And that invasion hasn't cost as many lives.
If cars and trucks only ran on heroin...
MW
I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" last night. Wow, great storytelling, be geez we really need to get on the ball.
Now this blog is shifting to world politics? Okay, I'll bite. Who is colonizing anything for natural resources? Where has that been proven? The war is about terrorism and although things have not gone as super picture perfect as all the Monday morning quarterbacks would like, there is one real fact, there have been no terrorist attacks in the USA since 9/11. Something's going right.
My bad, Anonymous 4:03, I shouldn't interject world politics on this blog. I just got a bit carried away with the loss of 3,006 Americans (so far).
And perhaps their deaths and our spending $2,000,000,000.00 per week occupying a country that is involved in its own civil war is worth not knowing whether there might be future attacks in the U.S.
This United States Air Force Veteran hates to see servicepersons come home in flag draped coffins, or missing limbs, no matter what the reasons that got us there in the first place were.
Now Anonymous, if I may...How many of the 9-11 terrorists were from Iraq? Has the U.S. military removed all al-Quida terrorists from Afghanistan? Just how many terrorists were in Iraq prior to our invasion? Why haven't we invaded the country where the majority of the 9-11 terrorists actually came from? Could it be that that particular country has the largest oil reserves in the world? If things are "right" in Iraq, then why do the majority of Americans, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on, want our excellent military out of harms away in Iraq?
I need to stop writing about world politics in the comments section of this blog. I hope to keep world politics off the posts of this blog, too.
Commentors may continue to comment, but I'll try to refrain unless I find a real stupid person being ridiculous.
And Anonymous, if all you have is "one real fact" to base your support of remaining in Iraq, it may be time to look at many more facts that some folks, like me, lood to in wanting us our of Iraq.
Afghanistan is another matter and I think our leaders and military should concentrate on finishing the job they started shortly after 9-11.
I'll shut up now.
MW
Did I state anywhere that I support leaving our military in Iraq at this point? Re-read what I wrote. I just question the whole "war for oil" bullshit. And yeah, I have "one real fact" and it is indisputable. Our military should be proud of that one real fact. I believe that their service has helped.
Nobody likes to see Americans die, even us civilians.
now we're talking. please, anonymous 6:59, tell me you are not so naive to believe oil was not a factor in the invasion of iraq?
granted, it's not the primary reason for invading. That will have to be, as far as I can tell, some sort of academic exercise on the part of Wolfowitz and the pointy-headed intellectuals at AEI.
7:21,
How can you say I'm naive? Where are the facts that support your assertion that oil was a factor for war? You have none! I would be naive to believe that oil was a factor especially if there were no evidence to back that up.
Please don't tell me that Michael Moore has the facts.
How about Senator Bob Graham?! Former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. During the primaries he clearly stated oil was an important reason behind the march to war.
Not into trusting Democrats? What about General Barry McCaffrey? He said as much on national television a few weeks ago!
It's sad to see people with absolutely no clue about what is going on. Truly sad. If this was truly about tyranny and democracy, why didn't we invade Iran? or Egypt? or North Korea?
Think pal...THINK! What does the war machine RUN ON!? What gives the U.S. its military superiority across the globe!? tanks, planes, and ships that burn fossil fuels. PETROLEUM. BLACK BLOOD OF THE EARTH.
Now Cheney has batted down the "oil" argument by saying "well, gee - we didn't invade saudi arabia and they've got a lot of oil." true, but the saudi regime has played ball for decades, throwing billions at the bush family and investing hundreds of billions in America. THAT's why we didn't go in there.
While there were other reasons for going in like, "this is the guy that tried to kill my dad," and "regime change" -- one of the largest was oil.
and while we're on the topic, why didn't we go big into afghanistan? i've gathered its because of a fear of recreating the soviet experience. but there's one large difference why that fear was misplaced. that war had a superpower sending money and weapons to the mujahadeen.
had we gone in big, which is what we should have done, and shut the place down, no superpower would have supported osama's fighters.
we had him, and we let him get away. what a crock.
I realize there is a lot going on in this world besides Ponte Vista. BUT! Let's keep the focus of this blog where it belongs. We only have to the end of this month to answer the DEIR and it's alleged dubiousness.
8:53pm,
Again. Where are the FACTS? McCaffrey "said as much"? What the hell does that mean? A democrat says it was for oil? No shit, they have to come up some some sort of lie (amongst others). You are on crack if you think for one minute that this war was driven by some oil related "shakedown" because Iraq was not playing ball and paying the evil Bush family billions. And according to you, we don't have enough oil available to us to keep the "war machine running"? You, sir, are a complete fool. Oil is available on the market. It's available to anybody who pays for it. We don't have to go to war for it. This isn't Mad Max.
Please elaborate on how this oil conspiracy was supposed to work? Were we supposed to seize the oil fields and declair them American? I don't get it. The current FACTS suggest that the oil still belongs to Iraq and the money from the oil belongs to Iraq. And the Bush family and America hasn't seen a penny out of Iraq. Where did the master plan go wrong???
Okay. I'm done.
Future of Iraq:
The spoils of war
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
Published: 07 January 2007
Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.
Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty
Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."
Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.
Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal."
Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today. "It is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry [to] a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party to the negotiations. The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March.
Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates.
James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire."
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman and a former chief economist at Shell, said it was crucial that any deal would guarantee funds for rebuilding Iraq. "It is absolutely vital that the revenue from the oil industry goes into Iraqi development and is seen to do so," he said. "Although it does make sense to collaborate with foreign investors, it is very important the terms are seen to be fair."
Uhhh, This piece seems to suggest that Iraq has a choice to allow capitolism to take place. The Iraqi's are in charge here. If they feel there is an advantage to allow BP, Shell and others to extract their oil, then they will do it. This article does in no way suggest that Iraq is being forced to collaborate with western oil companies, nor does it prove that the war was for oil. By the way, this is how "western" oil companies do business. There is nothing new here. If BP and Shell see an opportunity to drill and make a profit, they will try to make it happen. The US doesn't profit, the oil companies do regardless of what country they originate from.
Post a Comment