Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Wsater Meter Scam


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#16 bettyemahan

bettyemahan

    All Star

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts

Posted 03 November 2002 - 01:52 PM

You are mistaken. We all will eventually have meters. The point of yes on Measure P is that YOU and I and everyone does not have to pay for them because as it is now that is what will happen with a NO vote. In addition, we will be paying for them until the end of time and for all the future retrofits, AND ----meters do NOT conserve water anyone uses!!! YOU conserve the water!!! THERE IS NO WASTED WATER, EVEN WITH LAWN RUN-OFF! Everything that goes down the gutters or sewers, be it rain water, lawn watering run-off, or flushing the toilet----goes into the sewer system, then into water treatment facilities, and THEN BACK INTO THE RIVERS AND STREAMS, JUST LIKE THE SNOW AND RAIN RUN-OFF DOES.

A NO on Measure P ensures the right to charge you for ALL the water ALL the meters use. This measure was written the way it was for just this purpose-----READ THE DOCUMENTS!!!!!

#17 jake

jake

    Veteran

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 03 November 2002 - 09:31 PM

QUOTE
meters do NOT conserve water anyone uses!!! YOU conserve the water!!!


You're darn right meters will conserve water. When I pay money based on what I use, I will stop cleaning the driveway with a hose... I do it now because... it won't hurt me in the pocketbook!

You can't honestly live in such a myopic state to think that all extra water just ends up in the river anyway. It ends up in lots of places... in your dirt, in the air (when it evaporates)... my point is... it is absolutely irresponsible not to prepare for future residents in Sacramento.

Do you think natural gas and electricity is free too? I bet if you didn't have to pay per usage, you'd have the air conditioner on all day long. Don't tell me you wouldn't! blink.gif
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
-Yogi Berra

#18 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 04 November 2002 - 08:31 AM

QUOTE (jake @ Nov 3 2002, 12:52 PM)
I'm voting NO on P.

I think it is foolish and irresponsible to write in stone that pre-1992 homes cannot ever get water meters. This means, while the rest of Folsom makes effort to save water by (take your pick) not washing their driveway with water, not leaving the hose running while washing their car, re-landscaping their back yard so it is more conservative with water use, the people with pre-1992 homes go on and continue to waste water, because who cares, it costs the same either way.

I'm not categorizing all home owners that have pre-1992 homes in this light, but I do think that this is what it boils down to. Why should some people get cheap water while the rest of us have to pay more for it?

As for water "not being wasted" by flowing in to the storrm drain and in to a creek, that is the biggest bunch of bull I have ever heard. It's not that big a deal in years we have a lot of water, but in drought years, it makes a big difference. The more people letting their sidewalks flood over, the more water that could have gone a lot farther by watering someone's flowers, etc... the point is, in drought year's, WE (the post-1992 home owners) will be paying though the nose because water wasters are not conserving enough (why should they? it coasts the same!).

We really need to realize that Folsom is growing, there is nothing we can do about it. NOTHING. We are on the edge of the suburbs, and by that very classification, we will continue to grow, and then it's El Dorado Hills. People are multiplying in this world... they have to live somewhere! If you don't like that, move to Zamora or something.

Water is not a never-ending commodity. We must have water... if we can' have an Auburn Dam that would be a near-neverending supply of water to Sacramento, then we have to start conserving, starting now.

For those of you who don't realize it... a YES vote would cement this in stone that pre-1992 homes never get metered. EVER. Do you really think it's responsible to do that?

Jake, thanks, I couldn't have said it better.

Vote NO.

Cal
A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#19 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 04 November 2002 - 08:32 AM

Jake, very good. I couldn't have said it better.

VOTE NO

Cal
A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#20 EDF

EDF

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,517 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 09:14 AM

Well folks if you believe you can't do anything to stop runaway development... then you should vote No on "P"... in fact, why vote at all.....

And...... you might as well vote in the incumbants for City Council as well... since there is NOTHING we can do....

As for me... I want to send a message to the powers that be... that they must listen to us, the voters and taxpayers in this town... not just the special interests who don't even live in Folsom.... btw... they paid for all the slick campaign ads.... you will find out after the election that the oppostion was from the DEVELOPERS when all the required reports are filed with the county... so what does that tell me...? They plan to use the savings for their development south of 50....

I don't think you folks realize that since you have homes built after 1992... you have a meter... some of those will have to be replaced anyway... and guess what... you and all the other new comers get to help pay for mine as well.... I want to thank you for that...

Regards.....

#21 Mark

Mark

    Newbie

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 10:12 AM

Well you finally convinced me EDF. I'm voting No on P. I was on the fence on this one (albeit leaning towards voting no) until that last post of yours. This measure is obviously all about your opposition to growth (rampant growth as you put it) - period. I don't have a problem with the growth we've experienced, and I certainly am not willing to jeopardize water rights that we're entitled to just to get your anti-growth point across.
Yes, I believe the feds will follow through and cut our water - why in the world would they say that unless they meant it? They have no vested interest in Folsom growth!.

One way or the other, if the city wants to put in meters, we ALL will be paying for them, either through rate hikes or by having other services or projects un-funded to pay for the meters - isn't that how city's pay for things: our tax money? I don't give a hoot who paid for those flyers; that to me is a non-issue. I personally think that water meters are a good idea; it's about time everybody was held responsible for the amount of water they use - you, me and everyone else in this city. And I think it's short-sighted to risk losing future water rights over the issue.

So for now it's looking like No on P.

#22 EDF

EDF

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,517 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 11:02 AM

Mark....

Oh come on now....You were never on the fence on this one... .

Maybe you should ask the question... Why is that the city of Sacramento doesn't have meters... and can not because its in their charter...

I didn't read anywhere in your newspaper "the Bee" the fairness in that...they just hate Folsom anyway...

If it passes... then I think our elected leaders should be out there "renegotiating" all these water deals... seems simple to me....

Hey... I am a real estate broker... and an investor... and I am pro growth... but lets have them build it right this time... if you have been here any length of time you would know that... because... all we want is the City of Folsom to live up to the promises they have already made... seems fair to me...

In my opinion you are just reacting to scare tactics.. and if you want to believe outside interests.... go ahead... I am a little more informed than you...

You will be surprised at the amount of money spent against "P"... I bet most of it will come from outside of Folsom.... but that doesn't make any differance to you.... does it?....

Of course we can count on your support for the Auburn Dam then? and of course... you won't be complaining about the increase in taxes and fees to pay for this all either will you?.... because if your mind you can do nothing about it... sorry I don't agree with you....

Regards...



#23 bettyemahan

bettyemahan

    All Star

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 11:16 AM

The Feds CANNOT CUT the water Folsom is using NOW, 22,000 acre feet, because--------THEY HAVE NO CONNECTION TO IT,----NO SAY ABOUT IT,-----IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM,-------BECAUSE,----it belongs to ONLY Folsom by a GRANT going back to the late 1800's (pre-1914)!!!!!!

The ONLY water they can cut is the 7000 acre feet Folsom got by signing to METER ALL HOMES!!!!!

Folsom residents HAVE PROVED in all past years that THEY EACH conserve water. A meter just totals how much water YOU use and increases your rate accordingly!!!!!

A NO on Measure P only ensures that everyone using water in Folsom allows steady, tiered, increases FOR LITTLE OR ALL usage until the end of time-------AND that ALLOWS them to furnish water for ALL future building----INCLUDING SOUTH OF # 50!!!!!!

Why do you think that Greek developer has bought so much of it???? He couldn't plan on developing on all he bought unless he knew he could get water!!!!

It is very generous of you to want to pay all his water bills!!!



#24 April

April

    Netizen

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 01:22 PM

Well, it seems that Folsom is just a pit of double talk, confusion and scams!
What with the talk about the rezoning and then this water meter deal....whew!

I know what I've experienced and I've experienced water meters as well as low income housing in a normal neighborhood.
Both are a rip off to the working class home owners, in my opinion.

The responsible home owner will not waste water intentionally. I think everyone has on ocassion left the sprinklers on. But the water meter don't prevent this.
We had water meters where we last lived and for ten years we paid more for the billing and the meter reader, than the water. During the summer we never failed to go beyond the amount of water allowed under the first cost rate. AND, we really tried to cut back! But if just seemed impossible, unless we quit taking showers or let the lawn die. Our money was tight then, and we really didn't want to pay higher water bills, but since the amount of water allowed on the first tier of cost, was based on a "Per House" basis, we probably had a smaller bill than some of our neighbors who had bigger families.
I just felt ripped off about the meter we had because the greatest part of the cost was NOT for water, but for the people and services required to bill for it.
If the RIGHT thing were to be done, everyone in California would have meters, OR NONE of us would have them.
As far as those fliers are concerned.....really now, who would pay that cost if it wasn't going to benefit them somehow? And it doesn't take half a brain to figure that out.

Some may not care if there is a lot more growth, but to them I say, Hey! don't make that judgement until you have lived in L.A.! Until then, you don't know what big growth is or the problems that come with it.
This Prop "P" ............man, it sounds like we are between a rock and a hard place!
I agree that we shouldn't have to have water meters if Sacramento doesn't. But isn't it common for government to be "UNFAIR".
My friend said,"Why should Sacramento have water meters when there are so many poor who live there?" She is far more liberal than I and so to keep our friendship, I didn't argue over it, but strongly disagreed.
But folks, if you haven't had water meters before, trust me, it will be a far bigger bill in the mail each month, than you think. Because, you are probably using far more water than you think and that will mean you will pay much more for it if it is billed by a water usage system.
Thus far, we have talked of the cost to place them into homes, but the monthly bill will be larger than most think and most of that will be for the cost of billing and the cost of the meter being read.
Been there, done that.



#25 EDF

EDF

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,517 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 03:43 PM

April... thanks for that great post...

I came from the Bay Area and that is why I am here....

Your friend is typical... not only does she think its unfair to the folks in Sacramento to have water meters because they have so many poor living there... she wants you to pay more as well... typical liberal.... But of course she doesn't want to live amongst them does she....

I hope the measure passes... please pass the word...

Regards

#26 klsx2

klsx2

    Newbie

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 08:20 PM

Ed, Val, and Bob, and everyone else that reads this forum,

I am not a member of Families First, only a resident of Folsom for the last 3 years, prior to that Fair Oaks, and before that other parts of Sacramento for the past 15 years. I have just a few suggestions and comments here.

First, I appreciate all the time and effort that Bob, Val, and Ed have put in to keeping up on the issues. So thanks.

Second, now a bit of admonishment to all of you. While it may be frustrating to have the knowledge you do, and to continually have to tell the rest of us what is going on, please try to do so in a kind manner. Some of your tones, and written attitudes come off very condesending and turn many away for your cause.

Third, keep up the good work. Many people that now live in Folsom have not been here for a very long time. Folsom is a great place to live, that is why we all live here. However, for those that have not lived here long please try to understand that it is really a great place to live because of people like this who are involved and truly want to see Folsom continue to be a great place to live.

Fourth, while a absolutely am appauled at the way all of California uses water (See my previous post). I am voting Yes on measure P, because again a small portion of activists have taken the time to really dig into the issue and determine the facts. Anyone out there that has still not made up their mind, please take the time to find out the truth and make an educated decision. Don't let someone else tell you how to vote, or to scare you into voting a certain way. As always the truth will set you free.

Thanks for reading.

Kevin

#27 admin

admin

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 25 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 08:41 PM

Hear! Hear! Well said Kevin.

No truer words have been spoken - I think for the most part, people behave themselves in this forum, but one thing I have noticed is that 2 things set people off and people become ultra-opinionated: politics & religion. Not that I have anything against deep philisophical discussions about religion, but the political talk here is quite invigorating...

I must re-emphasize Kevin's post that a lot of people on this forum are new to the community, many new to this site as well... do your best to keep all of us informed, while being polite and civil about it.

For thise of you who like to "lurk" on these forums (which is fine), I encourage you to register and drop your 2 cents in every now and then... it makes these discussions much more interesting!

tongue.gif
MyFolsom.Com Message Board Tip #3
To view all new threads in the last 24 hours, Click on "Today's Active Topics" from the forum index.

#28 bettyemahan

bettyemahan

    All Star

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 08:50 PM

rolleyes.gif
Thanks to you both---Kevin and Admin. You are both correct! I for one appreciate this great forum! Keep on talkin folks! rolleyes.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users