ShoreBank Blog
The ShoreBank Blog is your place to find ShoreBank news, new product information, and our insight into the banking world.
Archive for February, 2010
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
“Do you know what I think? That main street is making a comeback,” said my small-town Kansas-raised Dad – and he wasn’t referring to the economy. Triplepundit.com’s recent article Buy Local. Grow a Sustainable Economy agrees with my dad (and apparently many others). It states that “Evidence is growing that ‘going green’ is a community-centric economic mega trend that is creating revenue growth for businesses and meaningful local economic development.” But, is there room to buy local in our lives?
“Local” technically means “existing in or belonging to the area where you live, or to the area that you are talking about.” That includes corporate chains, which can provide more convenient, lower-cost familiar brands than local small business equivalents can. But to me, buying “local” means that the point of purchase is within three miles of my home and, if given the option, one considers or selects a small business over a corporate one. For many, that might be easier said than done for the following reasons:
It’s more expensive to shop locally. It might not cost as much as you might think. It costs approximately $150 per person per month to purchase the groceries listed on the government’s Thrifty Food Plan. A Digital Journal studysuggested that that same person would spend an extra $10.32 to eat locally. And don’t forget the transportation costs you can forego by staying within a three mile radius. You might even be able to leave your car at home and self-power your way there.
But my local store doesn’t carry (insert brand name). According to Susan Witt, Executive Director of the E.F. Schumacher Society, if consumers turn online or to a chain store for a certain product, it can actually help local businesses better identify and innovatively fill gaps in the market place. Remember, many new companies begin as small local businesses.
Big corporations already contribute a lot to my community. Great! But there is room for more. A case study by Civic Economics on Austin, Texas found “local merchants generate substantially greater economic impact than chain retailers.” The study revealed that if someone was to spend $100 at a chain, only $13 would be funneled back into the economy. However, if one spent $100 at a local business, about $45 would go back to fuel the economy. That is not to say we should depend solely on local businesses but rather that if we make room for small businesses, they might be able to better fuel our communities’ growth than a large store might.
There are only corporate chains in my neighborhood. Keep an eye out for and try a new small business if it opens in your neighborhood. You might be pleasantly surprised by what you find.
There really is no good reason to not try to buy local. ShoreBank is committed to developing small businesses in our communities. What are you doing to make room for local businesses?
Tags: buy local, community development, ShoreBank, small business, triple bottom line
Posted in Community | 3 Comments »
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
Although landlords are ultimately responsible for a building’s energy efficiency, there are a number of steps which environmentally-friendly renters, some of whom pay their own utility bills, can take to reduce energy costs and consumption. So I am going to share with you some of the easy and convenient steps that we share with our ShoreBank customers and encourage building owners to pass along to their tenants.
*P.S. Many of the tips also apply to anyone owning or inhabiting a home, apartment, or condo.
1. Turn off unused lights and computers and replace incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).
2. Caulk and weather-strip windows and outside doors. For older windows, place a sheet of plastic over them and use two-way tape to affix it. The greatest source of heat loss in a home comes from the windows.
3. Remember to use the storm windows which help insulate the home and keep heat inside it.
4. Keep your drapes open in the winter to let sunlight naturally warm the room and home. And in the summer, keep them closed to prevent the place from getting too warm.
5. For each degree lower or higher you set the thermostat, you will save potentially two to 10 percent on heating or cooling costs. In the winter, keep the temperature set at 68 degrees during the day and 55 in the evening. Wearing a sweater or layered clothing will make the temperature more tolerable, especially on days when the bill arrives in the mail.
6. Clean the coils on the back of the refrigerators which contribute to about 15 percent of the total monthly electrical bill. This can help persuade your landlord to finally get around to replacing the old one with an ENERGY STAR model.
7. Get an electric blanket. Besides the joy and comfort that comes from getting into a bed at night with warm sheets, it is less expensive than heating your bedroom.
8. Move your furniture away from the exterior walls to create space between you and the cold walls. This will make space for the air to move around, making the air warmer.
9. Keep your radiator and heating vents clean from dust. Dust and dirt prevents heat from flowing into the rooms where you need it. It’s “no fun” to clean, but being cold and paying more for it can be even more painful.
10. Select ENERGY STAR appliances and products, and check efficiency ratings prior to purchasing.
Whether you own or rent, energy efficiency is everyone’s concern. Please share this information with friends, family and / or your landlord. It might even help some renters get a faster response to a lingering maintenance issue when the building owner understands how it will reduce their monthly costs while adding comfort and value to the property.
In fact many of the improvements are eligible for tax deductions and may help lower income taxes. With the April tax deadline fast approaching, I will explore the tax benefits of buying a home and incorporating energy saving improvements in your 2009 tax return in my next blog entry.
For additional energy saving information, visit the U.S. Department of Energy’s website.
Tags: community development, energy efficiency, environmental sustainability, green banking, green building, ShoreBank, triple bottom line
Posted in Mortgage Lending | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010
Energy finance is clearly a hot topic if a panel on the subject at the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance annual conference has an overflow crowd. In years past, the topic might have garnered a couple of dozen of attendees and not the capacity crowd seen last month.
Panelists who were representing a wide array of energy efficiency financing models – from Property Assessed Clean Energy programs (PACE), to on-bill financing options, to governmentally supported private and public financing efforts – illuminated similarities among the programs. These similarities offer the following important lessons for financing programs targeting the residential sector:
1. No model fits all areas. Because no one financing option is perfectly suited for all geographies, incomes, and housing types, a variety models is needed. For instance, although the PACE model is likely to prove quite helpful for many localities, this model may not be feasible for a municipality with elevated levels of foreclosure or a very low tax base, or for one teetering on bankruptcy. Likewise, an on-bill financing program that relies solely upon a utility’s coffers to fund the loans may have too small a capital base to cover a meaningful portion of the units in the utility’s territory. This problem is particularly acute for dense urban areas, such as Chicago, where the capital need is conservatively estimated to be in the billions.
2. Tie the financing to the property or meter. If utility savings are the source of repayment of the loan, the financing should be tied to the property or meter. Otherwise, depending upon the timing of the sale or move, the savings could fall well short of what is needed for repayment, leaving the homeowner or renter to fund the difference. However, equally important, if the financing remains in place after the initial owner or tenant leaves, the improvements should be limited to ones that are not easily removed, such as air-sealing, insulation, HVAC systems, and windows, which will continue to generate savings well after the original owner departs.
3. New sources of liquidity are entering the field. Development Finance Organizations (DFOs), in particular, could represent an important new source of liquidity for energy finance programs. DFOs are public finance entities capable of issuing bonds to support public purpose projects. A development finance entity, for instance, could potentially issue bonds to provide the capital for an on-bill financing program, thereby lessening the need for the utility to find the funds internally or to have to borrow them directly.
As the number of energy finance pilots grows and diversity of program types multiplies, there is an acute need for dialogue among the practitioners about lessons learned, limitations for other locales, and opportunities for collaboration. I applaud the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance for beginning this critical conversation.
Tags: energy finance, green banking, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, on-bill financing, ShoreBank, triple bottom line
Posted in Green Collar | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act may have great potential for economic boosting, but we cannot depend upon it to drive new jobs. The federal government website www.recovery.gov provides detailed information on how the $787 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds are being distributed. As of January 22, the government has paid out $268.8 billion in the form of tax benefits ($92.8 billion), contracts, grants, and loans ($73.2 billion), and entitlements ($102.8 billion). Data on the recipients of stimulus funds is broken down by sub-units as small as zip codes.
ShoreBank’s oldest location is in the heart of the South Shore neighborhood in zip code 60649, where unemployment is more than 20% and home values have declined by more than 40% in one year. A total of just one contract and one grant have been awarded in this zip code. The contract was for $1,800 to H L Jackson Consulting Company to review grant applications. The grant was for $200,000 to an organization called Featherfist to provide services to the homeless. That $200,000 is part of a larger $34 million grant to the City of Chicago which in turn created just 60 jobs, although none at Featherfist.
Based on aggregate data from recipients, 599,108 American workers were being paid by stimulus funds in the fourth quarter of 2009. This seems like a pathetically small number, with more than 15 million Americans unemployed. But it merely underlines what should be obvious: government does not have the capacity to be the primary job creator. Government primes the pump, but the private sector does the work.
Recent reports on Gross Domestic Product growth and strengthening activity in manufacturing are the real signs of progress. GDP surged 5.7% in the fourth quarter, fueled by gains in business spending on software and equipment. Manufacturing activity in January expanded for the sixth consecutive month and manufacturing industry employment is projected to increase in the months ahead. Employment is already growing in fields as diverse as textiles, petroleum & coal products, and transportation equipment. Hopefully, it won’t be too long until job growth returns to 60649 and beyond.
Tags: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, economic predictors, ShoreBank, triple bottom line, unemployment rate
Posted in Banking Industry | No Comments »
