Court Opinion

ID: 9818403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:43:09.031045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:47:22.876492
License: Public Domain

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Senior Judge,
concurring.
While I concur with the result, I respectfully disagree with the premise that the weatherization project, the focus of this case, is of no direct benefit to the City. As a city representative twenty-five years ago, I arranged for fans to be given to residents of the tenements in El Paso’s second ward. I think that was a direct benefit to the City. Likewise, the services provided here for the benefit of low- and moderate-income persons by making their homes energy efficient, and have a significant impact on water conservation for the evaporative coolers typically used on low- and moderate-income apartments: Indeed, it was not that long ago that the City gave direct cash rebates for replacing evapo-rative coolers with refrigerated air conditioning to conserve water. Almost two-years ago, I wrote, in a different vein: “Without water, the prospect of economic growth in El Paso is simply dust.” See Chris Roberts, (2012, Aug. 6) “El Paso City Re. Courtney Niland’s push to sell PSB land questioned,” El Paso Times, pp. Al. I think such a conservation service is a direct benefit to the City. I concur.