Reminds me of the time,
the Super Smart, Superbly Educated,  Above Average Intelligence, Mensa like, UL, Progressive Socialists,
decided it was a good thing.
To put $310.000.00 of Free, Solar Panels, on a  old roof surface.
Subsidy provided, and we all know that  Subsidy money just grows on trees, it does NOT come from Tax Payers, or Elect rate payers.
A-Yep, it just grows on trees.

Where the return in savings was about, 4,000.00 + a year.

After only 5 years, Yes ladies, 5 years, It had to come off, because the building needed a new roof surface.

Well, the Maplewood Community Center, ONLY had to pay, 13,000.00, EXTRA, to take them off, before a new roof could be put on.
Let’s see, 22,000.00 savings - 13,000.00 = 9,000.00 saving.
Cost to install, (Oh Yea, it was, FREE money),  $310,000.00,  - 9,000.00 = $301,000.00 IN THE HOLE !

So glad the,  Super Smart, Superbly Educated,  Above Average Intelligence, Mensa like, UL, Progressive Socialists, were making the decisions.
Just think, if it was actually someone with a BRAIN !

Now, that they are seeing as how it is totally obsolete, and will ONLY cost 20,000.00 + to put back up.
The Geniuses decided not to.  (And put it in storage, at a cost of ?)

MnSpring wrote on 12/17/18 at 07:11:10:

Your numbers don't make sense or are evidence of poor decision making.
$310k should equate to $310k+ in electricity over 20 years and usually the break even is less then 10 years.
$310k/20=$16k a year in electricity.  You state only $4k a year.  If so, somebody made a really bad deal.

 When I was in Norway it took me two days to figure out why so many places, like coffee shops had blue lightbulbs in bathrooms and such  Nightclubs had strobe/intermittent lumen bulbs.

 Its pretty difficult to hit a vein under a blue light, very difficult under a strobe.

Eegore wrote on 12/17/18 at 15:11:15:

   When I was in Norway it took me two days to figure out why so many places, like coffee shops had blue lightbulbs in bathrooms and such  Nightclubs had strobe/intermittent lumen bulbs.   Its pretty difficult to hit a vein under a blue light, very difficult under a strobe.

Great Idea.
Yet would Never work here.

Ya see, Eric Holder would be in the ER waiting room.
When in comes a Druggie, who couldn’t shoot up, because of the pulsing blue lights.
Eric tells him he can get a lot of money, because that Coffee Place deliberately sabotaged his, ‘right’ to do Drugs.
So Eric  Sues  the Coffee house for 3 Million, settles out of court for 1 Million, and gives the druggie 10% (100,000.00).
Then buys a 4 Million Life Insurance policy on the Druggie.
Which he collects on, in 3 months.

(That Fast and Furious Scandal was just dime time, this is the Big time)

Except that a married non-citizen can be deported.  

Not for just being here.
Unlike an illegal alien.

Keep scooting the goalposts.
Keep redefining things.
I'm not offended
I'm just tired of people pretending that an ANCHOR baby, for the topic of
Illegal immigrants
Is a baby born to an illegal immigrant.

A foreign person
Married to a citizen
Is
Not
An illegal alien.
So, FUKKING STOP ALREADY and know you're wrong.

"A foreign person
Married to a citizen
Is
Not
An illegal alien."

 That makes more sense but you haven't said that.  Uou said the criteria exists because a married Non-Citizen Mother can not be deported, and because of that she could not have an anchor baby.

 But she could be deported, so the definition is flawed.  No amount of personal attacks and complaining changes that.

 However stating that the definition of anchor baby applies exclusively to illegal immigrants, and can not apply to all Non-Citizen Mothers could potentially make a better argument.  A concept easily communicated of we use adult language.

 So are you saying that a Non-Citizen Mother can only have an anchor baby if she is in the country illegally?