News-Record.com

HR,
I wish you lived in Greensboro because I know you would vote for me to become Greensboro's first full-time mayor:
http://www.musecrafters.com/bloggingpoet/2601/Write-in+Billy+Jones+For+Mayor+Of+Greensboro.html

~

Why not take your snit to the next logical step, H. R? ANY event that draws people to our community is going to consume water. Let's cancel ALL events that might bring outsiders to our area and focus on letting our "yellow" mellow.

Where should we start, hmmm? I have it ... that damn Furniture Market! 30 thousand plus people coming here for two weeks twice a year, just a-drinkin' and a-flushin' every time you turn around! Why, if we send THAT show to Las Vegas, we'll save enough water to wash thousands of RVs! And while we're at it, let's do away with the Greater Whoever-It-Is-This-Year Golf Tournament and all ACC Basketball Tournaments.

Get a grip, H. R. A little perspective, please.

The real question here is, "Why did the News & Record feel compelled to print a rabble-rousing story that was sure to stir up people when the activity in question was perfectly legal and acceptable considering the contractual obligation of the Coliseum and the City?"

Then, it follows up with THREE LttEs (including yours) raising hell on the same subject. Why? Because it's helpful to the community? No. Because controversy sells papers and they can charge more for advertising.

Look BEYOND the story, H. R.

And just for the record, I have absolutely no connection to the RV industry or the event in question.

~

And the day this LTTE is published, High Point stops the "mandatory" water restrictions and goes back to "voluntary." Why? Because the rainfall put one of HP's water sources to "overflow" and brought the other to ONLY THREE FEET below normal level.

Well, what happens when we go 2, 3, even 4 months without any significant rainfall? If this is not stupidity at it's finest, I do not know what is!

Shalom

High Point has returned to voluntary water restrictions as it's water capacity as of Tuesday stands at 86%. There is a sound rationale for this action. If a municipality continues to maintain it's most restrictive water conservation policy when it has sufficient capacity, it has no "hammer" to use when and if conditions again deteriorate. If the city council can only decree that it is implementing "same as every other day for the past year or two restrictions," it has NO impact.

Consider a construction zone on an interstate highway where the "normal" speed limit is 70 mph. During the construction, the posted limit is lowered to 45 mph. If, after the construction is finished, the lower limit is unnecessarily left in place, traffic will begin to "gravitate" to the normal limit, basically ignoring the posted limit. When construction and a lower speed is again needed, the credibility for the lower posted limit will have been lost.

That is not to say that water conservation is not good PERSONAL policy, especially when doing so might forestall mandatory restrictions. But for the AUTHORITIES to have meaningful credibility when needed, they should not use their most restrictive policy ALL the time.

Jack,

Although I understand everything you are saying and it is very reasonable, I have to go with Darryl on this one.

The sheer cost of mailing personal letters to all citizens of High Point and implementing mandatory restrictions merits (in my opinion) a wait and see approach beyond one good bout of rain.

However, since they still have not reduced the increased price of water if used beyond a certain point, I think that will help stave off any major offenders.