Consumption Junction
You know, at first I thought Gene Baldwin was kind of off on this, but I think, upon talking this through a little further, he raises some good questions.
While I obviously think his suggestion that this is a revenue-grabbing scheme is beyond ludicrious, the notion that charging individual customers different rates based on water usage from two to three years ago seems a bit faulty to me. Am I mistaken in thinking that if a household used a ton of water during that period of time in the past, they're going to start with an advantage over those who tried to conserve during the same period?
Why not have a base rate for consumption that is universal to all households (adjusted for family size), and then charge progressively higher rates for consumption levels that go beyond that.
While I obviously think his suggestion that this is a revenue-grabbing scheme is beyond ludicrious, the notion that charging individual customers different rates based on water usage from two to three years ago seems a bit faulty to me. Am I mistaken in thinking that if a household used a ton of water during that period of time in the past, they're going to start with an advantage over those who tried to conserve during the same period?
Why not have a base rate for consumption that is universal to all households (adjusted for family size), and then charge progressively higher rates for consumption levels that go beyond that.
posted by Jmac at 8:50 AM
5 Comments:
Yep, you're correct. It was previously suggested that conservation pricing could be instituted above a certain increase over wintertime usage, and that's just silly.
To be honest, I'd be way more comfortable with differential pricing if it included an exempt portion, such that people who stayed within a reasonable allotment would see no increase.
Amen. I put new gutters and downspouts on my house, w/four rainbarrels, and stopped watering when I was supposed to... I think it should be based on average consumption by houshold size, not how much we managed to do without in the winter. My usage is down over 75% (it was 90% compared to last fall's planting season!), and it's not fair that in two years I'll be expected to use even less than I have THIS winter, I don't see how I can use any less water at this point.
My total usage for the month is 150 gallons, that's for the whole month. How on earth am I going to use less than that? I already have low flow toilets, only one of which I really use, and a low flow/high pressure shower head in the shower I use, do without my favorite coffee cups for days until the dishwasher, also energy efficient, is full... and do without my favorite jammies and other clothes until I have like loads ready to run at capacity.
I'm catching water in every sink to flush w/, take a shower w/a bin in the tub w/me to catch all that water, (tricky, w/my shower chair in there, it's a little crowded to say the least!) and seriously, I'm going to get stuck, in two years, w/a higher bill as thanks for all I've done to be a good homeowner?
They need to look at this. I don't have a pool, but the very idea that my new home, where I've only been two years (almost) is supposed to go without (even drought tolerant plants need a little help at planting time!)landscaping at all, so that folks anywhere in this state can have swimming pools, and those w/high incomes can water their yards, since they can afford it, makes me sick.
I'm watching this, and intend to take it out on whoever's running for office next time, I do mean whoever... if they screw the small homeowners, especially those of us who have done EVERYTHING humanly possible, and sacrificed a great deal, including actual CASH out of pocket, I'm not going to support the current commission for re-election. Not any of them.
They need to figure out a way to protect those of us on "fixed" (hah!) incomes. Period. And get UGA and other large employers, like the chicken plants, to PAY, PAY, and PAY some more.
That will be fair, and anything less, will NOT. Good heavens, this progressive crew has allowed obscene development, wants to sell our most pristine and beautiful property to people to use to research and KILL animals w/deadly who knows whats, is ruining the quality of life for anyone living w/in range of the airport they are expanding, and now they're going to make SURE that we get penalized out of the use of what is already sacrificial level of water usage? What is progressive about that? Screwing the little guy isn't cute, it's criminal. I am so watching... SO watching.
Maddy
The trouble with doing it by household size is that there is no way to know how many people live in a household, therefore there is no way to know what the base amount should be --unless you had a standard that was the same regardless of the numbers of people in the h'hold. The reason you can't know about how many people live in a h'hold (and therefore what they should be allocated as a base amount) is because the State legislature a few years ago passed a law to protect slumlords from having their properties inspected by local govt. This was, if you recall, designed to stall the efforts at rental regulation in AThens and Roswell.
"wants to sell our most pristine and beautiful property to people to use to research and KILL animals w/deadly who knows whats"
1) ACC doesn't own this land for NBAF --the State does; therefore ACC can't sell it.
2) Yes, the animals will be killed there after the research has been done. But the goal is to develop vaccines that will potentially save millions of lives. So, unless you are a vegan and use no animal products at all (including vaccines developed using animal experimentation), you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
.. and do without my favorite jammies...
God forbid
You suck
Post a Comment
<< Home