Water reads
Blake's got a pretty candid look at the upcoming discussion over the water conservation plan which is slated for some conversation tonight at the Athens-Clarke County Commission meeting. It's a good read, and I concur that this thing could get pretty ugly.
From my observations, it appears that Kathy Hoard takes her projects very personally. This isn't meant to be a criticism at all and, in fact, such a determined attitude is laudable in any environment. My only concern, however, woudl be that it might mean that she, as well as others on her subcommittee, put the blinders on and barrel through to the finish line. Based on what I've seen and heard, I agree wtih Blake and favor Carl Jordan's plan that focus on a more universal allotment of usage with tiered rates to follow.
Quite frankly, it seems to not only be the more pragmatic and simple approach, but it's also the fairer one. While I respect the argument that's put out there which says that those who have conserved in the past would still pay less because they would never approach the consumption levels of the higher users, I don't agree with it. The potential remains for what was once a conserver to become a higher user (say if they have triplets or want to put in a rockin' water pond), and the possibility is they would be hit unfairly by the new tiered system.
Jordan's plan makes the most sense and, as a result, I hope the commission follows suit.
From my observations, it appears that Kathy Hoard takes her projects very personally. This isn't meant to be a criticism at all and, in fact, such a determined attitude is laudable in any environment. My only concern, however, woudl be that it might mean that she, as well as others on her subcommittee, put the blinders on and barrel through to the finish line. Based on what I've seen and heard, I agree wtih Blake and favor Carl Jordan's plan that focus on a more universal allotment of usage with tiered rates to follow.
Quite frankly, it seems to not only be the more pragmatic and simple approach, but it's also the fairer one. While I respect the argument that's put out there which says that those who have conserved in the past would still pay less because they would never approach the consumption levels of the higher users, I don't agree with it. The potential remains for what was once a conserver to become a higher user (say if they have triplets or want to put in a rockin' water pond), and the possibility is they would be hit unfairly by the new tiered system.
Jordan's plan makes the most sense and, as a result, I hope the commission follows suit.
posted by Jmac at 4:08 PM
10 Comments:
Maybe in the next day or two, the public "input" will end, and Commissioners might vote, or something.
God, put a sock in it, people.
FWIW, I agree: Jordan's plan is superior. He'll probably spend a couple hours tonight telling us just that.
Reggie
why do they let all these "foreigners" speak? if you don't live in ACC, why are you taking up our time?
I fell asleep during the water discussion, but not until I'd had a big celebration that 6-4 the Commission, led by Alice Kinman, had the guts to look at the duplication of services, and actual outcomes of the home counseling services provided by EADC and HCDC.
This is hardly news, that they've been "entitled" for many years, some portion of which they've done GREAT work, putting many people into homes. But the last two years, their numbers have fallen. And, the Dept. of Labor provides job counseling, and has a whole program for job re-training, complete w/ a state of the art computer lab and classes on so called "soft skills" as well as clerical/computer skills.
There is no way we should have provided those two agencies w/almost 300,000 to provide a total of 5 people with actual housing last year. I can throw an educational seminar for 70 or so people, for much less than the salaries of those who are paying themselves very respectable salaries,while the residents homes all apart around them are left to face growing poverty rates.
I have been in favor of a tough look at all the money that both EADC and HCDC are getting, vs what they actually DO for their communities. As someone who's lived in each of those neighborhoods, I've been disappointed by the lack of any real help they can provide to anyone who is not already mortgable. For example, they should be distributing water conservation ktis, rain barrels, gutter screens and down spouts, low flow appliances, and energy efficient water heaters, dishwashers, cleaning old fridge coils, etc. And the incentives provided to those who make the leap from renter to homeowner should absolutely include all the water conseration efforts, there are dozens if not hundreds of communities that are already providing rebates and assistance.
One question, I am confused by the 1,1oo folks who are now to be required to pay to hook into the new meters. If I understood correctly, the new meters will help homeowners and renters keep track of water. Shouldn't those who can't afford those meters get a tax break for investing in water conservation?
I know it took a lot of guts, and strategizing this plan behind the scenes avoided the lengthy fight that would have followed if there had been calls for a more open process.
I hope that C's Maxwell and C Sims attitude will change, as they get a chance to look at he ratio between seminars, one on one counseling, new home owners, and staff costs.
If either agency is doing what they promised to do, and can prove results, then they should be able to compete w/any other agencies for that HUD funding, some of which will keep the doors of the EADC open and accountable to the feds, part of One Athens mission is to evaluate the actual agencies. As near as I can tell, the most effecive programs they run are the distribution of excess commodities, including food provided by the food banks.
Again, congratulations to the M and C for having the guts to evaluate the performance of these agencies. I'm a fan again, and proud that I helped a little in getting the ball rolling, esp. through SPLOST.
Now if we can only get low income home owners some incentives for investing in those same water conservation resources. The carrot as oppose to the stick, as it were, as one speaker suggested.
I hate I just couldn't stay awake to hear all the water planning conversations, so will be checking in today to get the details of the conversation. Anyone here able to give me the scoop?
This is the toughest work that the M and C do all year, allocating the ever shrinking federal CDBG funds. It is high time that those funds be allocated on the basis of results.
I'm back as a fan of the M and C, and I am sorry if the results last night didn't please the two commissioners who serve those neighborhoods. But we don't need to keep throwing good money after bad, and force the agencies to use the moola they are free to compete for, also available from HUD, and to recieve that money based on performance rather than good intentions.
The salaries recieved by the Exec Directors alone are a perfect example of how agencies have as their top priority continuing to pay themselves,rather than giving direct help, including water conservation education and resources. Both agencies need to wake up and smell the coffee, people don't wind up in those neighborhoods by choice,and that money should go to preserve and protect the homes of our most vulnerable people, and protect them from the loss of their homes in the sub prime market.
Please, if anyone made it through the discussion re Carls plan, let us know what you heard.
Maddy
Even Elton, who had issues w/the last minute number juggling by Alice Kinman, agreed that the agencies involved have failed in their unrealistic mission to connect the dots between counseling and actual affordable housing. For which the average public housing resident will NEVER be able to qualify.
Bravo, Bravo, Bravo! I would have thought that Commissioner Sims would be glad for the ACTION funding for home improvements for Seniors and disabled home owners, rather than claiming that depriving EADC a small portion of it's funding will put people out of work.
And Rev. Maxwell, well, shame on Rev. Maxwell. He knows well the innefficiencies of HCDC, and if the residents of public housing are "uncomfortable" hopping a bus to a credit union or consumer credit counseling agency, much less to the dept. of labor, they're not very motivated.
Being "comfortable" in their own neighborhoods, I can understand. But to have our tax dollars go to support clear duplication of services, instead of actually helping homeowners, and creating a safe place for kids to play at Dudley Park was a tough call, and it took great guts for the M and C to insist that Kevin McNeeley provide actual results from both agencies. At one point Mayor Davision offered to go get the stats that McNeely showed up w/out out of her desk drawer, l feltl a little sorry for McNeely, who clearly expected that their HED recommendations would fly through unchallenged, and was unprepared to answer the tough questions posed by both Hoard and Kinman. Doug did a great job breaking down the actual impact of these cuts on these agencies, as a counter argument to C's Maxwell and Sims, too.
I assume the deadline was looming, or we'd have more information about the outcome of the water discussion in the paper this morning. I agree that the green industry was right to object to the tier 4 designation for any residential irrigation systems. As they very aptly pointed out, the experts right here in A-CC could and should have been invited to the table to offer up their expertise in water conservation practices.
I am off to Cofers again, now that Charmars has closed, I will also be trecking out to Thyme after Thyme, to find the varieties of plants that I used to buy at Charmar.
Did anyone stay awake through the water discussion, and will take a few minutes to fill me in on whether Carl's plan made it through? It is clearly the fairer of the two plans, and doesn't penalize those of us who were already conserving during the winter two years ago.
Instead it forces businesses to take responsibility for their high levels of usages.
Congratulations to UGA for reducing their usage by 21 percent, now that's what I call being a team player.
I think this may go down as the most important meeing/decision making process EVER, and again, congratualtions for the way that Alice and others rallied enough votes to hold those agencies accountable for their performance.
I would also like to see the actual gallons used, as opposed to the complicated process of converting cubic square feet of water used, which is not explained adequately on our bills. I hope that made it through.
The state of GA is, I believe, about to pass a law that forbids local counties/bioregions to impose water restrictions that go above and beyond the state mandate for reduction of use. But it does NOT, as far as I can tell, preclude our local government using a carrot instead of a stick plan.
Now I remember why I worked hard to elect the current M and C, and pending the water plan, am very proud that they are not shirking their obligation to serve the people in census tracts 9 and 6.
Gutsy, brave, and true leadership deserve the gratitude of our community. Way to go to the 6 folks who had the integrity to do the math on these two agencies, and hope that similar innovations are on the way in the water plan/incentive based, and that will NOT punish the homeowners who have stepped up to the plate to do what it's taken for us to exceed the State of GA's recommendations for conservation.
Madelyn Powell
Water.
Three years from now when the drought is a distant memory and we are deluged by tropical storm after tropical storm, the Mayor and Commission will be forced to drastically raise water rates to make up for budget shortfalls due to the fact that they will be selling a lot less water.
Mark my words.
I lost the first post, I thought, so wrote a second, sorry for the duplication. I see today that we are still going to be penalized AND rates will rise in June, for everyone.
Depending on what year they use for winter usage, my home was unoccupied, in the process of renovation, and was owned by a flipper, not me. How will they make it fair for folks like me whose usage in that winter was nill, I wasn't even living there!
I think Carl had it right, those who use the most water should pay more for it. And those who exceed a reasonable amount of water usage should pay more, residential users, that is.
It was great to see Doc out doing what Doc does, advocating for the business community and ignoring the needs of the people living in or at the poverty line. Those of us on fixed incomes cannot afford to pay more for water in order to subsidize the largest institutions and employers in the county. They don't pay living wages, but expect those same poor folks that they exploit as employees on a daily basis to bear the brunt of the cost of water for their businesses. Just like they were all about the community covering the medical costs of employers too cheap to pay for insuring their workers. Same as they do for food stamps, mental health care, (those folks can just sit in jail, since we don't have any adequate or effective mental health resources that can address the HUGE need in Athens for care).
I am a huge Cathy Hoard fan on most days, and I know that no plan was going to make everyone happy, but cutting our largest, least responsible employers a huge break on water is ridiculous.
And NBAF wants their own infrastructure? How are we going to pay for that, and where will all the dead animals go, if not into our water/sewer system?
I hope the green industry wins in the legislature, because our local government has sold out our gardeners, and green businesses.
The chicken plants, hospitals and universities should be paying MORE for water, and residential users LESS. That will correct the loss of revenue for the water authority, without penalizing the people who are just trying to keep their clothes and selves clean, and keep some sort of curb appeal/value on their homes.
I feel betrayed by the M and C on this issue, I thought they were elected to preserve neighborhoods, and address poverty, not protect the largest users of our limited resources.
Madelyn
What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics.
Sure, you can raise the rates on those high-end industrial water users. But surely you can appreciate that such a move would (a) impact the bottom line of those firms which would (b) impact their decisions on whether to hire new workers and (c) impact their decisions on how to pay their existing employees.
If your idea is to punish these industries--or have the M&C do it for you--you should know that it won't accomplish much, if anything, that is positive. It might make you feel better, but it wouldn't do a damned thing for the local economy or for the "working poor" you purport to care about.
Reggie
Sure, you can raise the rates on those high-end industrial water users. But surely you can appreciate that such a move would (a) impact the bottom line of those firms which would (b) impact their decisions on whether to hire new workers and (c) impact their decisions on how to pay their existing employees.
All due respect Reggie, you seemed to be trapped behind a rock and your ideology here ... wouldn't a marked-based system (which Jordan's plan more closed favored with pricing adjusted to availability and uniform in pricing for all users) but closer to what you advocate for in every other instance?
Actually, I did agree with you: Jordan's plan is better, on many different levels.
I don't know that I'm in contradiction with his view at all. I'm not wild about the progressivity that was built into his plan, but even with that, it was much more market-based and much more to my liking.
Reggie
"How will they make it fair for folks like me whose usage in that winter was nill, I wasn't even living there!"
If your usage was nil then you will only pay the service fee for water and sewer; you won't pay a dime for water use. In fact, the plan as passed keeps the first 3,000 gallons per month used at the lowest price possible, precisely to take into consideration those who weren't using much/ any water in 05/06. Only if you use more than 3,000 gallons do you start to go into the next tier for price.
"I feel betrayed by the M and C on this issue, I thought they were elected to preserve neighborhoods, and address poverty, not protect the largest users of our limited resources."
Under this plan the largest users will be paying much more to use water.
Post a Comment
<< Home