|
|
Published December 2nd, 2015
|
Letters to the Editor
|
|
|
| |
|
Editor:
For just $238, the Orinda City Council could have found out how much water Orinda has used per year from 2004 to 2014.
Contrast the $238 with the $51,000 the city council awarded "... to hire a consultant to perform a comprehensive study of Orinda's downtown parking situation ..." (Lamorinda Weekly, Nov. 18). The council approved the $51,000 expenditure at its Nov. 3 meeting.
Also, at the Nov. 3 city council meeting, I personally offered - at no cost to the City of Orinda - to obtain information on Orinda's water use between 2004 and late 2015. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Orinda's water supplier, asked me to pay $238 to obtain the information on Orinda's water use.
I even stated (in writing) to the Orinda City Council that I would examine - at no cost to Orinda - the city's water use over the last 10 years. I never received a reply.
On July 1, EBMUD imposed a 1,000 gallon-per-day water limit on all Orinda households. Residents exceeding that limit would be assessed a financial penalty.
If the current four-year drought continues, the daily water ration may drop from 1,000 to 500, 200, or zero gallons per day. Who would want to buy a house in Orinda if the supply of water were severely limited? A lack of running water would make Orinda's homes impossible to sell and, thus, worthless.
If the City of Orinda knows how much water it has used over the last 10 years, then the city could decide if it needs to place a moratorium on new construction. In June, the city council of Pleasanton, California, placed a moratorium on a large construction project. The Pleasanton City Council cited the current drought as the reason for imposing the moratorium.
The time has arrived for Orinda's elected officials to take bold, decisive action on water consumption and to consider prohibiting more real estate development.
If the Orinda City Council can spend $51,000 to study parking, the council can surely take action to study Orinda's water situation.
Richard S. Colman
Orinda
Editor:
In Victor Ryerson's article of Nov. 18, I see a petition has been turned in to the Orinda City Council, encouraging the stack and pack scheme. The reasons for this are not believable. They want amenities to better serve the people. They don't specify what they want. Ethan Elkind suggests a "zero energy" building. Various of these people want increased "Vibrancy," complaining Orinda is not "Vibrant" enough. They do not specify what they actually mean.
The above exhibits a big bundle of emotion, but no intelligent thought. It follows the UN Agenda 21 plan, but
has no relation to anything that works.
1. Who will pay for it?
2. Will there be low income housing?
3. Where will people park?
4. Property taxes will go up. (This is the main motive for the bureaucrats in Orinda.)
5. Business will have to pay for new buildings.
Business in Orinda is already marginal. Orinda is a small market, not well adapted to economies-of-scale.
Higher rent and taxes will drive business out of Orinda. People are not going to live without their cars.
Lets not let the bureaucrats plan our lives. Their motives are political and will make Orinda a worse place to live.
Henry R. Pinney
Orinda
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Lamorinda Weekly, Moraga CA