Dave Bishop most of your questions are really `staff'' related in a manner of speaking. I took a shot at some of the questions and will relate my thoughts as follows...these are from page three.
I did not know there was a mandatory amount of water calif required.
2nd question...yes I believe it is the responsibility of the landlord to provide a safe and habitable environment to live.
NO! I personally feel it is unconstitutional to tax private wells, and or catchment systems
no. not part of the law suit
no, not involved with the grand jury report
don't know anything regarding the grand jury report
this question is confusingly put together. first, these rate payers(3774) are on the divide, not the county, per se. more to the point, a 218 process was used to pass this rate increase. this is done by the district asking the question, (paraphrasing) ` can we raise the rates?' yes or no. here is the rub. you do not have to reply if you don't mind if they raise the rates. if you DO mind, you HAVE to reply no! if you do not reply, your NON reply, counts as a yes vote. it is confusing to people that have never heard of this process.
YES. I believe that a rate increase of 130 bucks is a significant increase that create significant hardship. personally, we had to give up satellite tv and our annual trip to afford the bill . I am disabled and my wife is our one source of income. we raise cattle(homestead farm) and this rate increase, PLUS the removal of the first 2000 cu ft of water originally supplied with our service fee, is a great and significant hardship to MY household.
I am not a candidate and am not in any way affiliated with the water company, the candidates, or the employees of gdpud, so I cannot answer any of the remaining questions. that said, I TOTALLY disagree with the idea that this extreme of an increase was needed. I firmly believe there was greed involved, with this board wanting to build a huge bank account so as to be able to apply for loans. I also totally disagree with the idea that the entire infrastructure is needing replacement.( an uso statement)
I totally AGREE that our rates did need to come up a little. I understood the need to refurbish/improve upon the ALT treatment plant, I am not sure as to whether or not I agree that a whole new plant was required.
that last question is a very telling question with regard to THIS board. lon uso believes and has stated that he knows better than the ratepayers and he will do what HE thinks is best, regardless of the opinions at large. he has stated that he wants to provide for the low income people, but that provision was said to be about 6 or 7 dollars month. while every little bit helps, this is literally a drip in the bucket.
Dave Bishop the first two pages of questions , one must have been involved with the district at a staff/board member level, to answer. from a `outsider looking in' perspective, I am completely convinced that this board manufactured numbers that they are now trying to meet. it is also my belief that this subversion was initiated by lon uso.he was quoted as to having said, ``all these rate payers should be paying at least a hundred dollars a month for service''...before he was elected. he told me otherwise. he also stated that the previous board members, (``the crazy ladies'') were lying to make him look bad when they said his plan was to double our water bills...mine HAS been doubled. just the facts no shitslinging, thanks for the opportunity stephanie.
Anonymous Community Contributions:
Current Water Rates Document
No comments:
Post a Comment