[Equest-users] To whom it may concern: (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Eurek, John S NWO]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

LEED does have a monopoly for U.S. Military buildings.  Strangely enough
Katherine Hammack how helped start USGBC is now the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Installations, Energy & Environment).  And LEED is required for Amy
buildings, very curious.  Like the Halliburton of the green movement.

Like Pasha said, I agree with the goals, but the methods are questionable. 


Maybe I've said too much, I can't forget Big Brother is monitoring this site.

Think only double plus happy thoughts. 



"Is Freedom is a small price to pay to stop Global Warming?"

John Eurek PE, LEED AP


-----Original Message-----
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Pasha
Korber-Gonzalez
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:04 PM
To: eQUEST Users List
Subject: [Equest-users] To whom it may concern:

Just want to humbly state that I'm not trying to downgrade the intent of
LEED---I support thier intent 1000%;   I have disagreements with some of the
approaches that are being taken on our LEED models when they are being
reviewed inconsistantly among a single organization.
 
USGBC is a monopoly in the clearest sence (i.e. think US Post
Office-monopoly).   There is no one out there competing against them or
refuting what they want to "Deem" as THE WAY.    Sometimes a little
resistance or maybe a competitor to LEED would help push these issues to the
surface so to get rid of this 'underground suffering' of frustration and lack
of clarity with what GBCI --expects to see.
 
Many other LEED review comment discussions have also recently revealed the
inconsistency and discrepancy between EAc1 reviewer on the same team.
 
Cheers,
Pasha

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE