|
|
''Dear SVT''
Principle is people volunteering for a job they know they'll be criticized for. Principle is not about bullying people. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it right, and calculating your own lawn watering costs from your water bill doesn't mean that's normal behavior, much less using those results to justify your bullying.
If everyone acted like you are, there would be no volunteers and they would argue about every expenditure -- people without kids who don't use the pool would want a refund for that part of their dues, people who measure their sprinkler usage would want refunds for overwatering.
If it makes you feel better, I'll gladly drop $7.50 in your mailbox. The volunteers are doing a good job.
By The Silent Majority
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prove Your Numbers
Mr. Bruggeman,
Can you prove your numbers apply to our location here in south Tulsa? NOAA (not Noah) measures weather statistics for Tulsa out of the National Weather Service office at Tulsa International Airport. It is quite normal for rain patterns to vary widely in the 15 or so miles between here and there -- I've even seen tornado warnings for the other parts of town when it's not even raining on our neighborhood, and vice versa.
I'm against wasting money, but where are your official statistics for rainfal on our neighborhood for that calendar period. It's pretty arrogant to assume you are correct without having the correct data.
By I Support the Volunteers!
|
|
|
Dear STV Again
Look back at my original posting. It had to do with my desire to get an honest explanation from the board for the increase in utility costs. The ?“anonymous?” entries (including yours) have tried to turn this posting into something else. You do not care if you get an honest reason from the board for the utility cost increase. I do.
If you will read my entries associated with the aforementioned posting, my using my lawn watering as a gauge as to whether the lawn service was overwatering the RPHA common areas was done while I was treasurer of RPHA. I did this to be sure that the homeowners?’ dues were being prudently used. It was absolutely normal behavior for me to monitor utility costs. It was part of my duties as treasurer. You have provided no method (except your ?“do-nothing?” method) that you think I should have used in lieu of the one I did. Apparently you can?’t think of one.
Apparently you think I should have not done this comparison and blindly signed the RPHA checks that paid for utilities and not worry whether or not the lawn service was doing a good job. Well, that is where you and I are different. I care. You don?’t. I was trying to help the homeowners ?– to be sure their dues were not being wasted. Your approach is of no help to them ?– they just pay more than they need to. To put your wastefulness in perspective, take your 2.5% value of extra cost (that you claim is insignificant) and apply it to your own budget. Let?’s say your budget is $50,000. So, 2.5% of $50,000 is $1250 or equal to about 420 gallons of milk that you bought at the store, brought home and poured down the sink. And you believe that is okay?
I am not bullying anyone. I am simply expressing my opinions and explaining them. I don?’t use the pool, but I have not complained about paying dues to support the pool. I have not asked for refunds for overwatering. You can keep the $7.50 you childishly offered to put in my mailbox.
I simply asked the board why the cost of utilities increased so much. The board told me that it was too busy to find answers to these questions, but it had assured itself that proper monitoring of these costs had been done. If adequately monitoring had been done, then the board already had the answers to my questions and did not have to go find them.
Then the board attempts to explain the utility cost increase in the newsletter with an obviously incorrect and incomplete reason. This incorrect statement is what prompted my posting. I believe that I and the remainder of the homeowners are entitled to an honest, correct and complete reason for the cost increase. We have not received one.
The ?“principle?” I refer to is the board not only being a good custodian of homeowner dues, but also being honest with us. If the board had provided an honest, correct and complete reason for the increase in utility costs, I would not have made the posting. The board could have said it could have done a better job regarding utility costs and was going to make concerted efforts to do so in the future ?– but it could not bring itself to say that.
And, you approve of what the board has done? You astound me.
|
|
|
Rainfall Numbers
Hello, former board member. I?’ll stand by my argument. I believe the Tulsa rainfall values are representative enough of the relative rainfall in 2005 and 2006 for the neighborhood. My numbers show it rained 20% more in 2006 than 2005. Thus, there is some slack in my argument. I don?’t have to have precise neighborhood rainfall values. If the rainfall had been the same in 2005 and 2006, then the 52% increase of water usage at the entry in 2006 can?’t be explained by there being less rainfall in 2006 than in 2005. The reason I talked about rainfall in my posting is because the board used it as the basis of its explanation in the newsletter. I was simply pointing out that the rainfall numbers did not support the board?’s statements.
Moreover, as I already told you and the current board, the water usage at the entry has been about the same in the years before 2006 for which I have data (2003-2005), despite differences in rainfall in those years. This is because the sprinklers run whether it has rained or not. The lawn service sets the frequency and minutes of watering and changes these settings when the seasons change ?– sometimes not enough and sometimes at all. The fact you know all of this makes your comments disingenuous. You know my arguments go far beyond rainfall numbers.
Okay, we have level water usage at the entry in 2003, 2004 and 2005 ?– but then in 2006 the usage skyrockets by over 50%. How do you explain it? Could somebody have forgotten to reset the sprinklers or set them to run too much -- and nobody monitored usage when the bills came in -- and this happened for months -- and could still be happening? If my simple, easy to use, quick personal lawn watering monthly comparison (that I used while treasurer) had been used, this over usage would have been discovered in a timely fashion.
If you have access to what you refer to as the official rainfall numbers for the neighborhood, then feel free to provide them. Instead of claiming that I am ?“pretty arrogant to assume I am correct without having the correct data?”, show me those numbers. And, give me credit for the part of my argument that is independent of rainfall. If you want to provide me a specific source for these official neighborhood rainfall numbers, then I?’ll go to that source and look them up and tell you what they are. Did the board use these official neighborhood numbers when it claimed less rainfall caused the increased utility costs? I don?’t think so.
Perhaps you are more knowledgeable than I on where to find these official neighborhood rainfall numbers. I do not know where to find them. I did not know that they existed. I know of no official rainfall monitoring devices near or within and for the neighborhood, but I have no problem using such official numbers. But, I suppose if I found and provided these mysterious neighborhood rainfall numbers, you would extend your reasoning to tell me I can?’t prove the entryway or detention area within Ridge Pointe got the same rainfall as the official number for the neighborhood.
I am not going to repeat what I said before about the board being able to compare their personal water use in 2006 and 2005 to conclude the statement in the newsletter is incorrect. You can reread the details. Let me ask you, did you do 50% more watering of your yard in 2006 than 2005?
And remember, as I pointed out before, over one-half of the utility cost increase was totally independent of rainfall and yet drought/fire danger was used by the board as the reason for that increase.
|
