His response in the LWV debate about "just" building a reservoir shows his complete lack of understanding about the issue. Reservoirs are EXPENSIVE. All the good sites were taken by the end of the 60s. I don't doubt that we will eventually have to build a city reservoir, but it won't be for cheap water, let alone the substantial social and environmental issues that are associated with inundating thousands of acres. I was suspicious of him before that. He lost my vote with that statement.
McCarty has some good ideas, but is too naive. Unghh. Do I have to vote for Narvais? I feel dirty. I don't want any more strip malls.
You are right, he does not have a clue. I won't vote for Susan however. She is too slick at what she does and I have concerns about what she will do in the next two years. Newman would certainly be less effective which sounds strangely appealing right now.
Arredondo campaining for Susan? What's new. If you don't know the Arredondo/Narvaiz connection then I doubt your active in the community.
did Arredondo write that on tax payer time? He writes good political pieces if he actually wrote that, reads just like a campaign flier. Patching together statements to make the current Mayor look good.
cutbacks are a must. San Marcos has a massive LEO budget compared to other cities. We have more LEO to citizens then most other Texas cities.
one comment about reservoirs lost your vote for him despite our massive water problem and rates? What a simple minded voter. I can see how idiots keep getting elected, they are voted in by their fellow kind.
i think san marcos is too dumb not to vote out the current mayor. most people have no idea what's going on behind the scene and no clue the strangehold she has on council. i wish my fellow citizens would attend council meetings and had a grasp on the issues, also wish we had some decent bipartisan new sources. newstreamz is owned by a land developer who bleeds out such bias stories it's absurd but san marcos sucks it up like holy water.
Since you didn't actually read what I wrote: It was the final straw. He bumbled his way through answers. He showed he hasn't done his research. He didn't have a good answer to ANY question. That was the topper. I'm not happy about Narvaiz giving the developers excessive tax breaks, but I will not vote for an idiot just because they are running against someone I'm partially unhappy with. I'm asking, no begging, for someone with a clue to run against her next time. I expect my public leaders to be at least able to complete sentences and have a handle on how government works. Neither Newman or McCarthy do. I actually like some of each of their platforms. Don't people get it? When did being an bumbling fool become a qualification for office? If you are going to play the game, learn how. Be smarter than your opponent. It matters even on the local level. I know the city budget needs to get under control, but there are also long term issues we HAVE to put money and effort into. From what I have seen of Newman and McCarthy, neither of them are the ones to do it. If they do it for you, vote for them, but don't dare insinuate I haven't put thought into it.
His response in the LWV debate about "just" building a reservoir shows his complete lack of understanding about the issue. Reservoirs are EXPENSIVE. All the good sites were taken by the end of the 60s. I don't doubt that we will eventually have to build a city reservoir, but it won't be for cheap water, let alone the substantial social and environmental issues that are associated with inundating thousands of acres.
Apparently everything is EXPENSIVE.
Will the cost of building a reservoir come down in the future ?
"I don't doubt that we will eventually have to build a city reservoir, but it won't be for cheap water..."
If we will eventually have to build it, then the best time is now.
What kind of expensive water would you prefer to "free" rain; Evian, Perrier ?
If we get expensive water will that justify an expensive reservoir ?
I think you have been completely inundated by your lack of understanding about the issue and strangled your own argument with your own words.
Yes, many things are expensive and sadly, cash is a finite resource.
Which current CIP projects would you allow to be further postponed in order to build a reservoir? How much of a tax increase would you swallow for a reservoir?
The per-capita cost of a reservoir will continue to go down, as our population goes up and since a reservoir would be built based on projected needs, as our population grows, there is something to be said for waiting until more of that population is here, to foot the bill.
Really Jeep? Let's do a couple of quick back of the envelope calculations. The city municipal budget is $136 million (from the 2008 summary). In 1999 dollars the estimate for the Prairie Creek Reservoir (a proposed 4000 acre reservoir in the Sabine River drainage) was $55 million. This is a conservatively low estimate. The estimate for the Imperial Valley Reservoir is $172 Million (a 500 acre reservoir in southern CA). For the sake of argument, let's use $55 million. We probably don't need that large of a reservoir, but finding a good site around here will be much more expensive here instead of East Texas. Hill country land that has a large enough watershed and water supply to actually fill a reservoir, that can be purchased under eminent domain is going to be hard to come by. How do we fund a project that costs 40% of our annual budget? Bonds? At a best case scenario that is an additional $1100 per resident of debt. We're upset over the Mayor giving up $4 million in tax revenue ($80 per person). What do we put off, or cut out of our current budget and CIP projects? Roads? Police and fire protection? Schools? Even if we find other municipalities to go in on such a project with, it won't reduce our costs that much. More stakeholders means a larger, more expensive reservoir. Currently we have adequate supply and we are looking into getting additional water out of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. Additionally there are other measures we could take. We could get serious about conservation, which saves all of us money. Conservation would mean not having to invest in new capacity for longer. All new construction should be required to install 500 gallons of water cachement so that people can have their lawn fetishes without using treated water. Yes it costs more to put in, but the builder, buyer, and seller are the ones who incur the costs and reap the benefits on resale. (Same with solar). If we do want to put money into this, we could get farther by increasing city rebates for retrofitting of conservation measures into current construction.
Again, if Newman or McCarthy do it for you, vote for them. I'm just saying why I won't. It's not an endorsement of Narvaiz. She's got problems. For me, the two running against her aren't answers. I think you need to put a little thought into something other than pot, and worry less about insulting some stranger on the internet.
I don't doubt that we will eventually have to build a city reservoir
I did not opine for or against building a reservoir. I commented on your above statement, and you have, as usual, both misunderstood and "gone all batty" in response. I said, "IF we will eventually have to build it, then the best time is now." I never said I was in favor of, or against it. You ASS U ME d something I never stated.
As for the cost, hell yes it would be expensive (and heaven forbid they put a sidewalk around it). Will the cost per capita really go down as the population goes up (per semi's thesis)? I doubt it, that seems like a zero sum gain to me. The math may look good on paper but most San Marcans are renters and property owners will foot the bill. Many on this forum (if not all) are against raising water bills for anything. That would be the only way to spread the cost to all citizens. Also, as the city grows, development will hinder access to potential sites and raise the price even under eminent domain while the cost of construction will continue to rise. Waiting to implement for projected needs has Austin scrambling to catch up to what it needed 20 years ago. If the cost is to be spread over an incoming population so will the cost of new streets, water and sewers, etc. I don't see a gain waiting in any overcrowded golden future.
I'm all for conservation. I don't know anyone who isn't. Do it.
If I ever come to a firm decision on building a reservoir or not, I'll let you know.
As usual? I think this is the second or third time I've responded to any of your comments (unless you really do have multiple personalities and you're getting them confused...) I was commenting on a uninformed opinion by one of our mayoral candidates. He implied that a reservoir was a solution to our high water bills. You appeared to defend his position. I am concerned about the costs of projects falling more heavily on homeowners. I am one. From a strictly financial standpoint I'm not for building a reservoir when there are other solutions in process. However, I see it as a realistically possible outcome, and expect that a candidate for mayor should have a better handle on what the costs and trade-offs of a large project will be. From an environmental standpoint, I'm against it, but I'm also a realist. I never said I was against people paying for more water if we need to build supply capacity, in fact I think pay as you go is the only way to get people to conserve, and the cost should be shared by everyone. To do that we need to have a realistic idea of what things will cost. That was my point that you got all bent out of shape over. Sorry I gave you numbers instead of truthiness.
You must really have thin skin if you think that was "going all batty". You start arguments, throw out insults, and then accuse others of over-reacting. Poor form. Go smoke some of that weed you're always writing about. Chill out.