voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Water Cuts Hit Home

Monday, May 18, 2009 | I received my notice today requiring a 10 percent drop in water consumption or face penalties in the form of higher water rates. I am all for conserving, however, why are our city governments and elected officials failing us here? Why have they not limited new housing which I am sure would contribute to the shortage? They continue to pile up housing permit fees and then tell us to cut back or pay. If you started conserving water before this current shortage you will be paying extra just to keep up. Isn't there a law that prohibits building when adequate resourses, like water, are unavailable? The cities and San Diego County should be held accountable.

I realize that Lakeside is an unincorporated area of the county and that 99.9 percent of the news regarding pending water cutbacks has been about the city of San Diego, but .... have you been asleep at the wheel? Or, are you one of those people who refuses to read the Union-Tribune because you don't care for its editorial page and therefore miss out on most of the local news? Your questions are so 2008. People have been asking them for many months now. Just go back and read the archives of the Voice. People are upset about this issue and should be. Local government is a farce, as it is led by people not even qualified to run a church bake sale let alone the metropolis that is the city and county of San Diego. I hope you learn to be more aware of local issues.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 18, 2009 9:32 pm

Once again you need to come down off that high horse. Could it be that the writer has known quite clearly the issues involved but only felt motivated to write after receiving the notice? Perhaps you should spend less time at the keyboard and more out in the fresh air. Your attitude is stale.

Posted by larry | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 4:11 pm

Another silly argument against development based on water rates. Every single San Diegan has been subsidized by the state and federal taxpayers that built San Diego's water delivery system. On top of that, the water agency does not charge the necessary full price to both operate the system and pay for necessary maintenance and capital improvements... (i.e. you are still subsidized). New development is simply a convenient scapegoat because the largest water user is the city government itself (the incremental cost of providing water to new developments is actually very small as the developers - i.e new homeowners - are made to pay for the infrastructure). The only real solution is to have the water agency charge the full price necessary to cover the full costs (operations, maintenance and capital improvements) of the system to all water users. Then conservation will actually make economic sense.

Posted by El Cajonian | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 7:43 am

There is a state law that Requires a 20-year supply of water be proven available if you're building over 500 units. Surely the Allied Gardens and Fenton properties Redevelopments of 4,000 and nearly 5,000 units would qualify. There are 'no proven water supplies' given. The City of San Diego's Council (past & present) has repeatedly ignored it. Aguirre brought it to them. The state's attorney general must be asked to be involved.

Posted by You asked | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 7:55 am

Dept. ofWater Resources link : SB 221 and SB 610 apply to a 500 unit residential development OR a project that would increase the number of the public water system's existing service connections by 10%. Under Water Code Â§ 10912(a)(7), SB 610 would also apply to a "project" that "would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project." In order to determine whether an assessment will be required under the 500 unit equivalency threshold, the city or county would need to work with the water supplier to determine if the demand associated with a proposed project would be equivalent to or greater than the demand for a 500 unit project in that jurisdiction. This could include a water intensive project of less than 500 residential units, depending on how local agencies define the demand.

Posted by Charles Pratt | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 10:52 am

Exactly. Why did Quarry Falls get built, and the other like it? Wait, Sudberry was a big contibutior to the Mayor's reelection campaign. Can you connect the dots on why projects like these are continuing while we have no water. Also, where and who are these "water police" they plan on utilizing towards the common man/homeowner? How at such a time of crisis in San Diego's money woes do we have the funding to create yet another bueracracy and pay more employees?

Posted by drought tolerant | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 11:16 am

The City Council just did it again approving NEW development on a project originally approved in 1998--Black Mountain Ranch North Village approved with Faulkner,Young, DeMaio, Emerald leading the way! Its now "old" legacy homes versus "new" improved homes, DeMaio chanted. Give me a break! Stop raising property taxes and every other tax and we would upgrade equipment at our homes! It is SO business as usual at City Hall. It is time for a "no" growth period in San Diego. The SPIN is 70% of water is used for watering lawns at single family dwellings--oh, yeah, its all our fault that we are in a drought. WAKE UP Councilpeople, you allegiance to BIG BUSINESS is so transparent. The Public will end up paying for it all in the end--more expensive water when all the City and County had to do was Stop it.

Posted by nelson | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 2:21 pm

While they might not have had any other option to approve a project that has been in the pipeline for years, the point is well taken. Unfortunately, there's little else you can expect from a council that keeps reaffirming the absurd "affordable housing crisis" week after week. Even if they never approved another big project like North Village, they're not about to stop the infill that threatens most communities. Infill developers contribute to council pockets too.

Posted by larry | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 4:18 pm

At the risk of upsetting Larry's delicate sensitivities and with the express caveat that I AGREE with you on a period of no growth, I nevertheless have to ask what you are talking about when you mention "stop raising property taxes." Haven't you heard of Prop. 13? Sure, property taxes go up, but only minutely unless and until a property changes ownership. Please don't give those mental midgets on the city clowncil any more ideas. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I need to point out, yet again, that we will never -- ever! -- have a council responsive to citizens' needs and desires until we RETURN to the method of electing council members first by district only primary, followed by a general election in which the voters of the entire city vote for the candidates of each and every council district.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 4:50 pm

Edgar, I do know what Prop 13 is. I was in elementary school when it passed. Thus when I bought a house in the neighborhood where I grew up houses went from $32k to $500K--thus every year the taxes go up and over time the property tax is more than what I get in a raise each each at work. So..my point. I've been involved with City / Community planning for years and all I see is my sales tax going up, my property tax going up but the schools don't get better, etc. I was really hoping the new city council would stop doing deals behind closed doors but apparently the votes are still already known before the council meeting takes place. As a 3rd generation California I am really tired of all the transplanted crooks. Peace.

Posted by nelson | reply to this comment
May 20, 2009 12:38 pm

Well, Nelson, from the content of your comment above, your first sentence is absolutely incorrect. Unless you are buying a new house every year, your property tax is rising no more than two percent per year. That was the entire point of Prop. 13 -- to protect Calif. homeowners from being priced right out of their own homes by ever-rising property taxes imposed by a legislature run amok. Forget the sales tax. That doesn't have anything with how much property tax you pay. Forget California's abysmal public school system. The legislature spends money on facilities, upgrades, salaries, standardized testing and plain old brainwashing propaganda, and precious little on actual education. I recommend you educate yourself on the mechanics of Prop. 13. By the way, I was an adult when it passed (with my vote) and am proud to be a fourth generation San Diegan.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 20, 2009 7:22 pm

Let me try and clarify. I'm completely against any property tax hike. Yes, 2% sounds about correct. We bought our home 5 years ago and within that time property taxes have gone up $1k total. That is too much. Water bills have gone up; Gas and Electric bills have gone up--it never ends. Gasoline is up then down then up. Food slowly gets more expensive, even a stamp. All government gets bigger and I the citizen get less. It is nice to know you are a fellow Californian--I'm from Hollywood but lived in SDiego most of my life. BTW, the parents, both Californians voted against prop 13 because they predicted that it was the beginning of the end. I never knew my parents were so smart until now.

Posted by nelson | reply to this comment
May 21, 2009 1:08 pm

No. Let me clarify, since it is obvious you know nothing about Prop. 13. The two percent per year rise means that if you are currently paying (for the sake of illustration only) $1,000 per year, your taxes can only go up $20 (2%). In addition to that, Prop. 13 caps property taxes at one percent per 1,000 dollars (a house appraised at $100,000 = $1,000 in property tax). All this other stuff, power, gasoline, food, blah, blah, blah has NOTHING, NADA, ZIP to do with Prop. 13. You just don't like any taxes, period. Not a bad attitude to take, but you are entirely misdirecting your anger at Prop. 13. You apparently just don't like paying for anything at all, either. Well, that's life, unless you want to go on welfare. Let the taxpayers take care of you. Nice.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 21, 2009 9:50 pm

I know the other taxes I mentioned have nothing to do with Prop 13. I'm not angry with only Prop. 13. You missed the point. Please don't assume I'd want to be on welfare; I've always worked and earned what I have and I understand personal responsibility. The problem is way too many people don't take personal responsibility for their life. The point is "every" tax, no matter what kind has gotten OUT of control and most people are tired of working 40+ hours a week to "fund" programs only to read about continued government corruption at all levels, local or federal or state. My focus is the larger picture--I haven't even started on income taxes. Streets,police, fire, libraries, public universities, grade schools,sewer, trash,parks,museums, about all we can afford to maintain. Everything else will have to be endowed by the very wealthy. Accountability or no more taxes.

Posted by nelson | reply to this comment
May 25, 2009 4:29 pm

I didn't miss any point. MY only point is that you do not understand Prop. 13. While I can laud your viewpoint about all taxes, the only thing that kept the property tax from running amok, ruining the lives of people who have lived in the same house for years and years and providing a ready and steady source of money to the spendmeisters in Sacramento is, in fact, Prop. 13. Without it, your property taxes, in the 31 years it has been on the books would have laid waste to the Calif. landscape and its hapless taxpayers. All this to keep the hoi poloi satisfied just enough that they will continue to vote Democrat majorities in the Senate and Assembly. Bread and circuses. The mean mentality level of the residents of California must be pretty low, in deed.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 26, 2009 4:01 pm

Let me put it more succinctly as to why you do not understand Proposition 13. Proposition 13 is NOT a tax. It is a CONSTRAINT on a tax.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 26, 2009 4:12 pm

The premise you present is valid. The Mayor and the gang of 8 do not really have a clue and really do not care about existing residents as they get their donors from the new development side. Young recently push through a whole new development in South East San Diego when the Water department following the rules stated there was not sufficent water for the development. So much for rules. This group of 9 is going to eventually put San Diego in bankruptcy and then some judge will have to make the decisions. It is really a shame to watch this group destroy a great community for the sake of their egos. Shame on Faulkner, Lieghtner, Hueso, Young, Frye, DeMaio, Emerald,Gloria, and Sanders. They would rather put restrictions and fees on residents than actually solve the problem.

Posted by Rick T | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 3:19 pm

Clowncil will never bite the goose that lays its golden eggs of campaign contributions from development interests, including Labor -- um, have I mixed a metaphor here? -- until the day comes when representatives are chosen for commitment to community service rather than petty political ambition. I don't know how you legislate such an attribute in politicians, but I am glad to see that so many from across the political spectrum get the picture: a moratorium on building would mitigate the water crisis.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 7:15 pm

Fed, please see my comment two up from yours.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 19, 2009 10:24 pm

Now there are intervening comments, so it is see my comment responding to Nelson of May 19th, 5.50 pm -- specifically on how we elect the clowns to the clowncil.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 21, 2009 9:44 am

So, let's do the moratorium on residential housing. 'Affordable' is a joke, costing $800K for a 2 brdrm/2ba! You can buy a 2/2 unit in southbay for under 85K! A voter's initiative? Let's get started, now!

Posted by Just Do It | reply to this comment
May 20, 2009 7:24 am

We are going to be faced with water rates going up. There is no other way that the Water Districts can survive, since they are getting less water supplied to them and in must sell less water. So....All of us can cry and fuss, or we can do something about our own personal water usage AND go to our locl Water Board meetings and demand that they uphold SB 610 and SB 221 (also Water Code A 10912(a)(7) . Laws are enacted to protect the rights of the people and it is up to us to see that they are followed. How many projects have been passed that flaunt those laws and are in violation of them. No fooling around here, folks, the powers that be have ignored our laws and authorized more water connections for thousands of residents. Cities and County are gulty.

Posted by San Marcos Says | reply to this comment
May 23, 2009 11:42 am

Reading through all this, you are the one who hit it on the head, San Marcos, but when a law/ordinance/requir is requried for something you want to do to your property, will you comply gladly? Having knowledge of the city's permitting processes- the staff asksfor what 's required. The developer or resident usually doesn't comply, and many many times just goes over head and gets it waived. Whether the issue is improving curb ramps for handicapped fellow citizens to be able to get around, or sources of water for development, the rules are to keep the few from railroading the many. But the railroad goes right through city hall, when mayor and council are willing to 'waive' everything. But local media always say it's the staff, because the management/coumcil for the 23 yrs have a policy of blaming 'staff' for everything. hmm. Hopefully this town will grow into a city someday...

Posted by Lisa | reply to this comment
May 25, 2009 9:18 am

City and county governments both ignore the laws. Since we are in a declared drought emergency, they should not be issuing water meters to projects of over 500 units if there have not been significant water-saving plans outlined. That is why the laws are there and they should be followed. There are legal ways for projects to meet the conservation requirements -some have adopted them, while others merely flaunt the laws, and simply turn their backs. When both water and sewer are not available, it should be a simple decision to make - no project, or at least no water meters. Whether it be a project that the county controls or a city controls, the rules are the same. If projects do not find ways to conserve, we have less water. All of us. Countywide.

Posted by San Marcos says, | reply to this comment
May 27, 2009 5:32 am

Water Cuts Hit Home

By George Youkhanna, Lakeside