- This topic has 130 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
DWCAP.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 24, 2009 at 12:21 PM #387458April 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM #386816
Nor-LA-SD-guy
ParticipantMaybe they can force the builders to install fake Lawns on anything built after 2005, That should help some.
I seen a city do something similar on a tract built a block from the coast, seems they installed wood fences but the termites started to destroy the fences in the first homes almost as soon as they were sold, so the city made them install those plastic fences even in the already sold homes that were 2 years old at that point.
April 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM #387079ParticipantMaybe they can force the builders to install fake Lawns on anything built after 2005, That should help some.
I seen a city do something similar on a tract built a block from the coast, seems they installed wood fences but the termites started to destroy the fences in the first homes almost as soon as they were sold, so the city made them install those plastic fences even in the already sold homes that were 2 years old at that point.
April 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM #387275ParticipantMaybe they can force the builders to install fake Lawns on anything built after 2005, That should help some.
I seen a city do something similar on a tract built a block from the coast, seems they installed wood fences but the termites started to destroy the fences in the first homes almost as soon as they were sold, so the city made them install those plastic fences even in the already sold homes that were 2 years old at that point.
April 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM #387328ParticipantMaybe they can force the builders to install fake Lawns on anything built after 2005, That should help some.
I seen a city do something similar on a tract built a block from the coast, seems they installed wood fences but the termites started to destroy the fences in the first homes almost as soon as they were sold, so the city made them install those plastic fences even in the already sold homes that were 2 years old at that point.
April 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM #387468ParticipantMaybe they can force the builders to install fake Lawns on anything built after 2005, That should help some.
I seen a city do something similar on a tract built a block from the coast, seems they installed wood fences but the termites started to destroy the fences in the first homes almost as soon as they were sold, so the city made them install those plastic fences even in the already sold homes that were 2 years old at that point.
April 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM #386821
CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]The water allocation should be based on the number of inhabitants in each dwelling, not to exceed the number of bedrooms x 2.
The billed person would need to sign an affidavit stating the number of occupants, subject to audits.
Condo buildings would need to conduct surveys.
Excess water usage would be billed at punitive rates. If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter. You can still have your tropical landscape.
[/quote]I heard one proposal for the way it’s going to work is based on your prior year’s usage + a cushion allocation. So for example if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
April 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM #387084CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]The water allocation should be based on the number of inhabitants in each dwelling, not to exceed the number of bedrooms x 2.
The billed person would need to sign an affidavit stating the number of occupants, subject to audits.
Condo buildings would need to conduct surveys.
Excess water usage would be billed at punitive rates. If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter. You can still have your tropical landscape.
[/quote]I heard one proposal for the way it’s going to work is based on your prior year’s usage + a cushion allocation. So for example if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
April 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM #387280CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]The water allocation should be based on the number of inhabitants in each dwelling, not to exceed the number of bedrooms x 2.
The billed person would need to sign an affidavit stating the number of occupants, subject to audits.
Condo buildings would need to conduct surveys.
Excess water usage would be billed at punitive rates. If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter. You can still have your tropical landscape.
[/quote]I heard one proposal for the way it’s going to work is based on your prior year’s usage + a cushion allocation. So for example if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
April 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM #387333CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]The water allocation should be based on the number of inhabitants in each dwelling, not to exceed the number of bedrooms x 2.
The billed person would need to sign an affidavit stating the number of occupants, subject to audits.
Condo buildings would need to conduct surveys.
Excess water usage would be billed at punitive rates. If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter. You can still have your tropical landscape.
[/quote]I heard one proposal for the way it’s going to work is based on your prior year’s usage + a cushion allocation. So for example if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
April 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM #387473CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]The water allocation should be based on the number of inhabitants in each dwelling, not to exceed the number of bedrooms x 2.
The billed person would need to sign an affidavit stating the number of occupants, subject to audits.
Condo buildings would need to conduct surveys.
Excess water usage would be billed at punitive rates. If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter. You can still have your tropical landscape.
[/quote]I heard one proposal for the way it’s going to work is based on your prior year’s usage + a cushion allocation. So for example if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
April 24, 2009 at 12:53 PM #386826briansd1
Guest[quote=flu] if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
[/quote]I read something like that too. That is lame.
Savers are punished.
Larger households are also punished, when in truth
larger households are more resource efficient.People who have larger spaces and larger lots should pay more for their lifestyle decisions.
We all know what happens when you have the wrong incentives in place: fraud and gaming of the system.
April 24, 2009 at 12:53 PM #387088Guest[quote=flu] if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
[/quote]I read something like that too. That is lame.
Savers are punished.
Larger households are also punished, when in truth
larger households are more resource efficient.People who have larger spaces and larger lots should pay more for their lifestyle decisions.
We all know what happens when you have the wrong incentives in place: fraud and gaming of the system.
April 24, 2009 at 12:53 PM #387285Guest[quote=flu] if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
[/quote]I read something like that too. That is lame.
Savers are punished.
Larger households are also punished, when in truth
larger households are more resource efficient.People who have larger spaces and larger lots should pay more for their lifestyle decisions.
We all know what happens when you have the wrong incentives in place: fraud and gaming of the system.
April 24, 2009 at 12:53 PM #387338Guest[quote=flu] if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
[/quote]I read something like that too. That is lame.
Savers are punished.
Larger households are also punished, when in truth
larger households are more resource efficient.People who have larger spaces and larger lots should pay more for their lifestyle decisions.
We all know what happens when you have the wrong incentives in place: fraud and gaming of the system.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.