"Govt" Is Just Another Word For "Bend Over": Parma, Ohio, Charges Residents Who Collect Rainwater On Their Property
I thought this had to be a joke.
In Parma, Ohio, a city on the southern edge of Cleveland, if you put out a plastic barrel -- on your own property -- to collect the rain that falls out of the sky, you'll need to pay $31.
Bob Sandrick writes at Cleveland.com:
Residents wanting to install a rain barrel in their yards will have to pay a steeper fee than what was originally believed.The fee is $31 for one barrel, $32 for two, $33 for three and so on.
Last week, the Sun Post reported that it would cost just $1 to install a rain barrel.
That was based on a reading of a rain-barrel ordinance that City Council approved May 7. The ordinance established regulations for rain barrels.
If you live in Parma and you voted for anyone on the City Council who voted for this, you are not a sentient being who should be allowed to vote (or cross the street without being leashed to a competent adult).
As commenter paradisoch wrote on the Cleveland.com post:
Unfortunately, now the city will have an excuse to send people on your property to see if you have an authorized rain barrel; people don't own their property, they are merely tenants of the state.
via Joe Wahler
This is just rubbing salt in an existing wound. Try not paying your taxes and see how understanding the Sheriff is when he runs you off "your" property.
We are so easily distracted we have no idea this can happen.
Radwaste at May 22, 2016 10:34 PM
I had a similar discussion on this issue with a friend of mine, a new lawyer, on Facebook. Parma, Ohio isn't the only one, or the worst one, to place restrictions on rainwater collection.
Patrick at May 23, 2016 1:49 AM
@Patrick: Interesting link. Certainly, basic rainwater collection should never be illegal. However, I can see that the original case was a problem: the guy created artificial lakes, which is a bit more than just what fell on his roof.
Even so, I'm very much of the opinion that all surface rights to land (wind, rain, etc.) should be tied to land ownership. It should not be possible to separate them: if you own the land, you own the wind blowing over it and the rain falling on it. Any other concept is perverse.
Of course, the story Amy found is different. It's not that rainwater collection is illegal, it's a regulatory fee. You have to pay to own a barrel, and they pay again to get rid of it.
The kinds of bureaucrats and politicians who think this is a good idea? Ideal candidates for a good tarring and feathering.
I have a rainwater barrel. It's not in plain sight, and it's been in place for many years. I have no idea if it's "allowed", and frankly don't care...
a_random_guy at May 23, 2016 5:55 AM
Could it be because the storing rainwater is pretty much stealing from an innocent, virginal, imaculate, and kind water utility company like Bechtel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War
Sixclaws at May 23, 2016 5:59 AM
It's funny, because these days, in the eastern U.S., a lot of commercial properties are required to collect rainwater on their property. They have to build "rainwater retention ponds" which collect rainwater and then let it drain back out slowly, so that storm drain systems don't have to be improved. If you're on a commercial property like a shopping center or office complex, and you note that somewhere on the property there's a big turf-lined hole serving no apparent purpose, that's what it is. Property owners must set aside a piece of their property to perform this public service.
Another thing that some commercial properties do is use their building's flat roof as a rainwater retention pond. To find out why that's a really bad idea, look up the Kemper Arena.
Cousin Dave at May 23, 2016 6:41 AM
I think somebody should claim the water is being collected for a mikvah and say the regulation is impinging upon religious freedom.
It'd be interesting, at least.
Shannon at May 23, 2016 10:02 AM
Shannon - that's a good point, claim that it is for religious reasons and see if they don't "wave" the tax?
charles at May 23, 2016 6:14 PM
From what I understand, in addition to creating lakes he also diverted a stream running near but not on his property
lujlp at May 23, 2016 8:22 PM
"They have to build "rainwater retention ponds" which collect rainwater and then let it drain back out slowly, so that storm drain systems don't have to be improved."
Umm, that's not the whole reason. In Florida at least, those ponds are to ensure that parking-lot pollution is not released directly to "waters of the state", which has a legal definition. The time a petroleum distillate spends in that pond will allow the pond to absorb, convert and evaporate it; their volume is proportional to the runoff area it adjoins.
Radwaste at May 24, 2016 12:38 AM
Actually, many of the ponds are required to replace the wetlands which are displaced by new construction in Florida. In fairness, the Egrets don't seem to know the difference.
Kind of like how we can build a Whole Foods in Sarasota where there lies a marsh (well, a slough at least) by donating wetlands property well away from the desired construction site.
drcos at May 24, 2016 7:11 AM
Here in Houston it is solely about flood prevention. It just isn't reasonable to build the sewer system to scale required when heavy rains fall. If a housing development doesn't have a central pond or river people won't buy because you know you house will flood within ten years.
There is also a common trick used by corrupt developers. They build a property with insufficient drainage intentionally and a bit of a slope. When the neighboring property starts to flood they can buy that land at rock bottom prices.
Ben at May 24, 2016 9:28 AM
"Actually, many of the ponds are required to replace the wetlands which are displaced by new construction in Florida."
This is a hoax, called "mitigation", perpetrated by the State - again, at least in Florida.
The retention ponds are never the size of the habitat lost to construction, and never match the ecological profile of the area paved for the new WalMart, or whatever.
The Super WalMart on Merritt Island, FL, a barrier island, was built because three miles was too far to drive to the next one. I hope I don't have to tell you what gets displaced when barrier islands are developed.
"Mitigation" = "I bought the county commission off."
How do I know this? If you look at Indian Cove condominiums, on Merritt Island, FL, you are looking at a location where seawalls were prohibited by the state due to the artificial coastline being in "an estuarine zone". Well, they were prohibited until our marina at that location was sold to build the condos - at which time the money came out and the prohibition vanished.
Money really CAN solve everything!
Radwaste at May 24, 2016 8:51 PM
The retention ponds are never the size of the habitat lost to construction...
This is sadly true. Yes, mitigation is a hoax, or a joke. Much like Gov. Dick the 1st.
drcos at May 26, 2016 11:30 AM
Leave a comment