Water rate increases again (employment, salary, maintenance)

[kettlepot]

For newly built apartment complexes, I believe individually metered water is now mandatory. Eventually, our water bills are probably going to double or triple again as either the coastal commission or the EPA is going to mandate that we rebuild the Point Loma sewage treatment plant at a cost of several billion dollars. The fish need drinkably pure water to cr@p in.

[oBak]

Originally Posted by dweej

I have been a renter in CA for 5 of the last 8 years, and I have always had to pay my own water . *BUT* I do have a friend who rents a home that is owned by a very conscientious older couple who want the yard to remain "just so" and they do pay her water. So, you'll have to shop around, but it is possible to find a rental that has the water costs built into your rent.

In the 20 years of living in san diego, we have always rented and I don't think we have ever had to pay for water. That was how it was in Apartments and Houses that we rented.
I think included water is the norm.

[Traal]

We have to stop wasting valuable drinking water on lawns and ornamental plants.

[zango]

Water is expensive here. Especially considering that the City has not replaced any of the old cast iron pipes that have been in the ground for 60+ years. And those pipes are now breaking all over town. Every day the news is covering another water pipe that breaks. And the city is raising rates to pay for the repairs. I was out of town for an entire month. My house was empty(zero water usage) and my bill was still $96. Which was due to a special assesment for repairs.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

It seems like a yearly event. I am basically spending ~2k a year on water.

That's about what my water bills amount to on an annual basis ... and I live in Phoenix where the cost of living is "supposed" to be less expensive. Of course, I have a grass lawn and lots of trees because I need shade and greenery to make life a little more pleasant in a hot desert climate. It doesn't sound like I would really be spending any more money on water if I lived in San Diego.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

That's about what my water bills amount to on an annual basis ... and I live in Phoenix where the cost of living is "supposed" to be less expensive. Of course, I have a grass lawn and lots of trees because I need shade and greenery to make life a little more pleasant in a hot desert climate. It doesn't sound like I would really be spending any more money on water if I lived in San Diego.

I have a ~1k sf 2br house... how big is yours?

[BRinSM]

wait until you guys get mandated watering restrictions and the differential pressure causes major water main breaks on a daily basis like up here in LA. that is of course until we completely run out of potable water having wasted it all on having pefect lawns in a near desert environment.

[bloom]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

...how big is yours?

hey hey hey

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Anyone get their forms and notice? How do you feel about the proposed increase?

I'm a little upset as we already pay the highest water bills of any major city in the US and it is clear the city is using water prices as a way to increase revenue while still allowing Sanders to say he didn't increase taxes. The truth is you always pay one way or another so I would prefer that rather then constantly raising the price of a life or death thing like water we just adjusted property tax rates to make things as equitable as possible.

It really is an either or situation because the city needs the money and there just isn't a way to cut back much more legally. Obviously the city pension problems (which are entirely our own making) is a huge factor but there is no way out of that short of bankruptcy which would be ruinous for the city. Short of bankruptcy, the US Supreme Court has said it is legal to fire people just before they qualify for their pension as that is a legitimate cost decision so, if I were in charge, I would fire about 1/3 of the people eligible for pensions and replace them with low cost new hires who wouldn't get pensions. I'd let the remaining 2/3rds train the new 1/3 then in about six months to a year I'd fire another 1/3 of those people on the old pension program.... Then in an additional year I'd fire and replace the last 1/3. The end result would be the city would have a new lower cost employee base and we'd be entirely out of the old pension system without having to fund most of those lavish pensions.

[PharmboyinNC]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

if I were in charge, I would fire about 1/3 of the people eligible for pensions and replace them with low cost new hires who wouldn't get pensions. I'd let the remaining 2/3rds train the new 1/3 then in about six months to a year I'd fire another 1/3 of those people on the old pension program.... Then in an additional year I'd fire and replace the last 1/3. The end result would be the city would have a new lower cost employee base and we'd be entirely out of the old pension system without having to fund most of those lavish pensions.

That is a bad tactic. You would destroy the morale and lives of all those employees. Also, you are putting an inexperienced employee team to manage the city services in several years. The intangibles will be lost, such as experience and leadership. I can guarantee that the new group will be less motivated, less porductive, and more whiney too, as the new generation progresses out of our education system.

Using an metric system that ranks responsibility with performance (and cutting the bottom % in a crunch) would be somewhat of a better solution. You want to retain those who are valuable and deserve a higher pay and retainment.