Comments for Way Out West News

Comment on Report: San Francisco faces water-related dangers by Jerry

Jerry — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:06:06 +0000

The statement that the SF Public Utilities Commission is developing local water supplies is terribly misleading. SF is the only major county (and probably only major city) that has absolutely no currently functioning recycled water capacity. They have been studying the subject for “heaven knows how long” while others have been putting recycled water projects online. Meanwhile Golden Gate Park, 4 or 5 municipal golf courses, and a variety of parks and school yards are being irrigated with potable water.

Comment on San Francisco shifting tree care onto property owners by Tree Removal Brisbane

Tree Removal Brisbane — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:31:18 +0000

We all love trees!

Comment on Peninsula open space district cash strapped by Midpen open space agency getting more cash | Way Out West News

Midpen open space agency getting more cash | Way Out West News — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:14:56 +0000

[...] Brown has come to the rescue of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The agency recently reported that it is running dry of cash to save new land from the clutches of suburban sprawl. The new law, [...]

Comment on San Francisco slates cash to Central Subway project by Howard Wong

Howard Wong — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 06:49:50 +0000

The high risk to the City’s finances is a real concern—because the Federal Transit Administration requires that ALL cost-overruns must be paid by the City of San Francisco. Irrespective of good intentions and planning, consider that most (perhaps all) large infrastructure project exceed budget by extraordinary amounts.

Comment on Peninsula open space district cash strapped by MROSD

MROSD — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:59:41 +0000

Thank you for taking an interest in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Please consider altering your headline as the District will not go broke by 2017. Part of the District’s fiscal discipline is looking ahead and managing changes responsibly and sustainably. If the District continues to purchase land consistent with its historical rates, in 2017 it will have less than $1 million per year to buy open space. That’s because as the District acquired more open space land, the costs to manage these lands also increased. This has resulted in the District looking to expand and diversify its ability to fund its mission going forward. To approach this issue logically and responsibly: By 2017, without new revenue sources, MROSD will have to pare down the rate at which it purchases land in order to manage what’s been acquired. Regarding charging fees, the District conducted a survey to see if the public would be willing to consider a parking fee at select preserves at some point in the future but the board is not considering implementing public access fees at this time. The board is only gathering information in order to assess potential future opportunities that might enhance the District’s revenue. Thank you for your time and for allowing me to clarify a few points.

Comment on San Francisco shifting tree care onto property owners by Mark

Mark — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:01:28 +0000

If we’re financially responsible for the trees fronting our property, I sure do hope we’ll have the discretion to decide whether we want to keep or remove them, particularly since they’re not critical, mandatory infrastructure. Don’t get me wrong, trees are beautiful and even add value, however, they’re not essential to function. What’s next, say, everyone must have Christmas lights hung on posts fronting their homes during the holidays? It would be nice, but don’t make it mandatory to have them, and if you are going to make mandatory something of preference, don’t make us pay for them.

SF already takes so much of our money already too. Many of the readers here are right. Unbelievable the City doesn’t have any money to provide upkeep. What’s next, and when, at what, will it stop. Add more tax property owners have to pay to pay for something like the repainting of street signs? At least having legible street signs is mandatory to function.

Also, property owners are hardly the only ones supposedly enjoying the trees. The public does. Why is SF choosing, amongst many options, to make the property owner responsible and incur the cost. I wonder how much the advocates of trees at any cost will keep to their tune when they know they will certainly be paying an extra $500 or more directly out of their pocket every year.

Comment on San Francisco catches on to bulk solar purchasing by Anon

Anon — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:59:20 +0000

So they didn’t consider to include non-business owners? What gives?

Comment on Feds consider shooting barred owls to save spotted by Ultra-Humanite

Ultra-Humanite — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:36:43 +0000

I believe it’s called survival of the fittest for a reason.

Comment on Feds consider shooting barred owls to save spotted by Mark

Mark — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:29:22 +0000

Just leave mother nature alone and if that means the demise of the spotted owl, it was it’s time to go. Darwinism…survival of the fittest shows that all species may die off but others will quickly replace them. We shouldn’t “protect” animals that cannot find an environment to survive in.

Comment on San Francisco catches on to bulk solar purchasing by San Francisco catches on to bulk solar purchasing – Way Out West | 3d Printer Site

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:20:33 +0000

[...] San Francisco catches on to bulk solar purchasingWay Out WestAnd business owners won This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged business. Bookmark the permalink. ← Objet Geometries’ 260 Connex 3D Printer Puts Two Different Materials in One RP … – Core77.com (blog) Sanofi Divests Dermik Dermatology Unit to Valeant Pharmaceuticals … – VAdvert Press Center (press release) → [...]