Google is not your friend

Page 1 of 4  

"[RIVERHEAD, N.Y.] A town on New York's Long Island is using Google Earth to find backyard pools that don't have the proper permits. The town of Riverhead has used the satellite image service to find about 250 pools whose owners never filled out the required paperwork.
"Riverhead's chief building inspector Leroy Barnes Jr. said the unpermitted pools were a safety concern. (So far about $75,000 in fees has been collected.)"
It's for the children.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/long_island/Google-Earth-Used-To-Find-Unlicensed-Pools-20100801-apx
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny how the only people complaining are the ones that have something to hide.
I for one think this is a great thing. I jumped through the hoops to get my pool permit. I rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. If that sumbitch next door put in his pool illegally, it serves him right to get caught and fined.
The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue generator for the city. $75,000 in fines, but how much did it cost the city to find the offenders, do all the paperwork, and collect those fines? Probably a lot more than $75,000.
I gotta wonder, how many of these fees and fines are profit generators for the city? Probably not many. Most probably don't even pay for themselves.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 2, 11:41 am, snipped-for-privacy@rochester.rr.com wrote:

re: "The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue generator for the city."
Sometimes you gotta spend a little to make a lot.
Maybe (and I'm just speculating) if it cost say, $150K to make generate that first $75K, which includes fines, then they may gotten the word out that they will come looking for you, regardless of the cost.
Perhaps fewer people will go the non-permit route, and eventually they'll recoup the extra cost and start making money on the permits. Lots of money in Riverhead, NY.
None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools" that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local codes.
Preventing those problems might be enough of a reason to lose money going after the non-permitted pools - assuming of course that they also force the owners to fix code-conflicting problems.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A piece of paper does not guarantee any of that won't still happen, unfortunately.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 2, 12:28 pm, snipped-for-privacy@rochester.rr.com wrote:

True, but how many things in this life *are* guaranteed?
If there's a way to reduce the odds of it happening, then I think that way should be followed.
Just watch Holmes On Homes to see what gets built when contractors purposely neglect the permit process.
(No, this is not an endorsment of H on H but it *is* a good show to watch if you want to see some shoddy workmanship. My favorite was the guy who dug out the basement floor to below the existing foundation and built a 2 story addition with the new basement sill plates sitting on the dirt.)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining" groundwater? Get real!

Nonsense. Such rules do make it easier for the city to collect taxes, though. When all governments are scraping the barrel looking for a dime, why do you suppose they're doing it this year?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

re: "No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining" groundwater? Get real!
Oh, like that wasn't a comment. Nice try.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You do have a reading problem, don't you. I said I wouldn't comment on the choice of words. The idea that pool water is going to contaminate groundwater is *dumb*, however.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's OK, as long as you completely missed the point, we're good.
Show me the post where I used the words "contaminate groundwater".
Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not only can't you read, and remember the subject of threads, but you don't even understand what *you* have written!
Let me refresh your memory. You said:
"None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools" that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local codes."
Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground water).

No, but your brain is well done. Well beyond toast.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

He doesn't have a cool, refreshing pool. The city confiscated it.
I understand the city is going to take all the confiscated pools, stack them up, and make a lake.
With fishing and everything. For the children.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They'll just "ruin the aquifer"!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

Yes, the same chemicals used by pretty much every public and private water utility in the world to sanitize DRINKING water.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 3, 12:45 pm, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"
Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.
Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and "groundwater"?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Since it's clear you can't read, write, or think, I'll just ask you straight up. What the fuck are you yammering on about? How is a pool going to "ruin an aquifer"? I was giving you a benefit of the doubt with "ground water".
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't need you to give me the "benefit of the doubt" - especially by putting words in my mouth and then telling me I can't read my own posts. How does someone become so arrogant that they can read a single word, assume the person meant something other than what they wrote and then berate them based on that incorrect assumption?
I specifically said in an earlier post "show me where I used the words "contaminated groundwater"? I never wrote, meant or even implied ground water. I never used the word "contaminated". I never mentioned chemicals. You made an incorrect assumption and took off from there, accusing me of not knowing what I wrote or meant.
You were wrong from the start and now you're in so deep you can't climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.
Here are the words *you* used while trying to show us all just how smart you are:
"Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground water)."
Now it's my turn to assume that *you* didn't know the difference between "the aquifer" and "ground water". A person who knew the difference certainly wouldn't use them both in a sentence as if they meant the same thing, would they? Wouldn't they be considered illiterate if they did? I can only assume that you didn't know the difference until I suggested that you look it up. Hmmm...this "making assumptions" thing is kind of fun. I can see why you do it.
Consider the possibility - however slim - that digging the hole for the pool disturbs "an underground bed or layer of permeable rock, sediment, or soil that yields water" (the definition of an aquifer, not the definition of ground water) or the collapsing of the pool bottom and the ensuing rush of water that washes away "an underground bed or layer of permeable rock, sediment, or soil that yields water" (the definition of an aquifer, not the definition of ground water).
I really don't care if you think that is possible or not - but feel free to tell me that it isn't - *after* you admit that you were flat out wrong in assuming that I meant the pool could ruin the ground water. Being told that I am wrong about something I actually meant is very different than being told that I am wrong about something you *assumed* I meant.
I never meant "ground water", regardless of how many times you try to convince yourself that I did, and regardless of how much vulgar language or how many insults you put in a post. If you think you have some kind of power to read a post and decipher the *real* meaning of the words someone used, you are sadly mistaken. How about next time *asking* them what they meant before making an ass out of yourself?
You may now "posture", backpedal and toss a few choice insults my way, because we can all be sure that you're not going to apologize for being wrong in assuming you knew what I meant.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

More posturing. You refuse to explain your *stupid* comments because, well, you know they're stupid.

Ditz, you said you didn't know what words to use. I gave you some more choices. You never explained further, only yammer on about, well who knows what?

I'm not the one who's neck deep in his "aquifer", dummy.

You snipped the part where *you* said you didn't know what words to use. BTW ground water => aquifer.

...and if pigs could fly, perhaps you'd be useful.

Of course you don't care. You're happy being the dumbest stump in the group.

Ah, don't cry. Really, it's ok being the dumbest stump in the forest. Someone has to be.

More posturing. No content.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 3, 11:23 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Pretty weak response.
re: "BTW ground water => aquifer."
http://tinyurl.com/define-aquifer
or
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:aquifer&sa=X&ei=G-FYTMm0I4T0swO51LC1CQ&ved=0CBIQkAE
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.