Stage 2 Water Restrictions - They're still on?!?!!? ... Should I just kiss my lawn goodbye? (Austin: requirements, foundation)

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You may not be very concerned - but I can assure you LCRA is VERY VERY concerned - and they should be. If we have a dry summer like 2011 the lake level will drop will below historic low.

Not so concerned that they didn't try to find a way to send water to rice farmers this spring.

Our water problems, long term, are due to one thing--rice farming in the Lower Colorado. If the LCRA had not sent the second water allottment back in 2011 we'd be in much better shape today in the resevoirs. They need to have their water rights bought out, by eminent domain if necessary, and the flooding of those fields stopped permanently.

[mesmer]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Not so concerned that they didn't try to find a way to send water to rice farmers this spring.

Our water problems, long term, are due to one thing--rice farming in the Lower Colorado. If the LCRA had not sent the second water allottment back in 2011 we'd be in much better shape today in the resevoirs. They need to have their water rights bought out, by eminent domain if necessary, and the flooding of those fields stopped permanently.

And since Texas rice is known to have more arsenic than average... it's better for everybody, everywhere if we just stop growing it.

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by mesmer

And since Texas rice is known to have more arsenic than average... it's better for everybody, everywhere if we just stop growing it.

I would agree with that. Growing rice is not sound in dry country like Texas.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Komeht

So the rich can eat bone-in prime ribeye every night and the poor have to eat rice and beans? How equitable is that?

So the rich can drive expensive gas guzzlers and the poor have to make do with efficient economy cars or public transportation? How equitable is that?

So the rich can have huge homes, leave all the windows and doors open all summer long and run massive ACs to cool their house and the poor have to live in modest homes and efficiently heat and cool them? How equitable is that?

So the rich can take vacations 4 times a year to exotic locations all over the world and the poor must save enough to take a long weekend in Port A once a year? How equitable is that?

Unlike those ridiculous examples, water is not a luxury that people can live without. The largest water users in Austin are the wealthy who don't even notice the prices, reducing those excesses will have a far more significant effect on water conservation then penalizing the poor who need a garden to get by.

The biggest water users in Austin...

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Unlike those ridiculous examples, water is not a luxury that people can live without. The largest water users in Austin are the wealthy who don't even notice the prices, reducing those excesses will have a far more significant effect on water conservation then penalizing the poor who need a garden to get by.

The biggest water users in Austin...

Those so-called "ridiculous examples have to do with:

Sustenance
Shelter
power to keep you place warm in winter or cool in summer
and recreation

All necessities in human life no? Except for the last, arguably all essential for existence in central Texas.

If you increase price high enough those who are price sensitive will conserve and those who are not will not.

There's no reason the poor should have a lush green lawn just because they are poor - that's absurd.

Rationing by price allows people to make a decision - if they want to conserve they certainly can. If they want to have a big lush green lawn, they can do so as well, but they have to pay for it.

All this is - is putting the burden on the users. High users pay high prices. Low users pay low prices.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Those so-called "ridiculous examples have to do with:

If you increase price high enough those who are price sensitive will conserve and those who are not will not.

There's no reason the poor should have a lush green lawn just because they are poor - that's absurd.

Rationing by price allows people to make a decision - if they want to conserve they certainly can. If they want to have a big lush green lawn, they can do so as well, but they have to pay for it.

All this is - is putting the burden on the users. High users pay high prices. Low users pay low prices.

In post #78 I told a tale by my friend, the retired engineer from Denver Water Company. While we lived there, we had an a dry spell where water rates were increased to cut back consumption. And it generally worked. Of course, there were a number of people who did not pay attention to the new rates.

My friend told me that almost without exception, the high water users were rich folks with huge lawns, who went down to the water board where many were "forgiven" the extra charges, and more than one got specific exemptions for the higher charges. And, yes, it was all residential use. I suspect the same sort of crap goes on in Texas as goes on in Colorado.

More money, more exemptions. Less money---screwed to help the rich maintain their excessive lifestyles.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Two points:

1. Lots of homes aren't burdened by HOAs, I've owned two myself.
2. Even if you insist there is not choice becuse you HAVE to love in a new area, there is a choice as to WHICH HOA, each of which has its own covenants and rules that vary dramatically. So yes, it is absolutely is voluntary - none of those restrictions are hidden and by statute they must be provided to you for your review prior to close.

People select housing to accommodate needs not as entertainment. They have to choose from what is available. To suggest that people "choose" HOA-burdened property or that HOA-burdened property is in demand is ludicrous. Local government policy has mandated HOA-burdened property for new subdivisions for quite some time - eliminating choice.

There is NO statute that requires that a prospective purchaser be provided with a copy of the restrictions prior to closing. There is a requirement to provide a notice of involuntary membership under Tex. Prop. Code §5.012. That statutory notice provides in relevant part:

"As a purchaser of property in the residential community in which this property is located, you are obligated to be a member of a property owners' association. Restriction covenants governing the use and occupancy of the property and all dedicatory instruments governing the establishment, maintenance, or operation of this residential community have been or will be recorded in the Real Property Records of the county inn which the property is located. Copies of the restrictive covenants and dedicatory instruments may be obtained from the from the county clerk."

PROPERTY CODE**CHAPTER 5. CONVEYANCES

Note the reference to "have been OR will be recorded". In other words, more documents that you haven't seen, don't have access to, etc. can be filed at any time in the future to deprive you of the use and enjoyment of the property that existed at the time of purchase. That's not notice.

A significant portion of the population has no choice but to be in HOA-burdened housing. Consumers have to choose from what's available. There is an expanding population here. Nothing built in the last 20+ years is HOA-free as a result of developer control & liability shifting schemes and local government policies.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

People select housing to accommodate needs not as entertainment. They have to choose from what is available. To suggest that people "choose" HOA-burdened property or that HOA-burdened property is in demand is ludicrous. Local government policy has mandated HOA-burdened property for new subdivisions for quite some time - eliminating choice.

There is NO statute that requires that a prospective purchaser be provided with a copy of the restrictions prior to closing. There is a requirement to provide a notice of involuntary membership under Tex. Prop. Code §5.012. That statutory notice provides in relevant part:

"As a purchaser of property in the residential community in which this property is located, you are obligated to be a member of a property owners' association. Restriction covenants governing the use and occupancy of the property and all dedicatory instruments governing the establishment, maintenance, or operation of this residential community have been or will be recorded in the Real Property Records of the county inn which the property is located. Copies of the restrictive covenants and dedicatory instruments may be obtained from the from the county clerk."

PROPERTY CODE**CHAPTER 5. CONVEYANCES

Note the reference to "have been OR will be recorded". In other words, more documents that you haven't seen, don't have access to, etc. can be filed at any time in the future to deprive you of the use and enjoyment of the property that existed at the time of purchase. That's not notice.

A significant portion of the population has no choice but to be in HOA-burdened housing. Consumers have to choose from what's available. There is an expanding population here. Nothing built in the last 20+ years is HOA-free as a result of developer control & liability shifting schemes and local government policies.

my sales contract required ALL covenants to be presented with plenty of time to review prior to close. In other words, I had an absolute out per the terms of my contract.

No one has NO choice but to be in HOA-burndedn housing. That is a choice. Again, I've bought two houses free and clear of HOA burdens. Don't tell me it can't be done - it's very doable. And as I mentioned before, even if you INSIST on new housing, there is ALWAYS the options as to which HOA. If you can't manage to get a sales contract that requires disclosure of covenants and deed restrictions then FIRE your realtor IMMEDIATELY and also go down to the county office and pull the records for yourself.

[ardamir]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Yes, kiss your grass goodbye. If they have to go to Stage 3, which is still a possibility, you will not be allowed to water your lawn AT ALL.

This is incorrect. Stage 3 will retain the once a week watering but will reduce the number of hours allowed for irrigation.

Stage 4 however...

Just noticed that this was from 2012. However, the forecast are predicting it will be likely that COA will be moving into Stage 3 in a matter of months. You know things are getting bad when people are hoping for a hurricane.

[gpurcell]

One trick is that you're allowed to use a soaker hose for trees. So I planted one and ran soaker hoses arounf it. Keeps the tree nice AND works really well on the grass.