Saturday, December 11, 2004

Hold on Joe, we'll draw you a map

Joe, please don't take my illustrations so literally. I am just pointing out that we all make decisions based on our backgrounds and preferences, and not everyone makes decisions based on lowest cost or best overall cost effectiveness, nor should we.
If we did, most people would be driving Volkswagens, and we wouldn't see any Jags or Mazzarattis at all. What I call waste, you may call efficiency. People can look at the same situation and draw different conclusions based on their own paradigms.
There should be at least a little latitude given in the decision making process.
If there were three board members who were allergic to pollen, would they be right in saying that the association should not be planting flowers because it is a waste of the associations money and flowers are offensive to some people? Of course not. But in their own minds, that may be the conclusions that they draw. What's bad for the goose must be bad for the gander.
You call the lack of a water conservation plan mismanagement.
I might call the lack of a plan for Coto to develop its own water source mismanagement.
Geologists have told me there is an abundant water supply beneath Coto, that is quite suitable for irrigation, but perhaps not quite adequate for drinking. I have brought this up years ago at board meetings. Was it ever looked into? And how about all the potential revenue lost by not selling water to the golf club for their irrigation?
Joe, I am only pointing out that a variety of differing ideas can have merit, I am not necessarily advocating wells, even though they may potentially represent huge savings.
Back when you were on the board, I remember Karen Rose informing us of a plan to have the landscapers check and adjust all of the irrigation timers to save as much water as possible, and people were encouraged to report broken sprinklers. Was that a water management plan?. If so, isn't it still in effect? if not, why are you criticizing this board when your board knew of the problem and did nothing about it?
Again Joe, I am not trying to take shots, I am just trying to point out how different people can perceive the same set of circumstances quite differently. If everything that could be done was done, perhaps dues could be cut by 30%. But I just consider that waste the cost of doing business. There is only so much one board can take on using part time volunteers and limited resources. The big rush to make fast decisions in the interest of saving money just has not produced a lot of smiling faces. There is a value to continuity that rarely gets factored in to accountant based decisions. For example, I do not believe the disruption to the community was adequately factored in when the switch was made from Merit to Keystone based on low bid. They didn't even know the general area, much less the community when they first came on board. Was the discontinuity really worth the cost savings?
Have you forgotten all the obnoxious warning letters they sent to hundreds of households when they first came on board and drove through Coto looking for nit picking infractions, and so many people complained that the warnings were later withdrawn? I have not forgotten that episode.
Different strokes Joe


Post a Comment

<< Home