3 ms·
It's an interesting point, but bear in mind that the scenarios raised in this and adjacent threads didn't involve subdividing but rather just hooking up an exis
by d110af5ccf 5y ago
It's an interesting point, but bear in mind that the scenarios raised in this and adjacent threads didn't involve subdividing but rather just hooking up an existing lot. One would hope that system capacity was at least sufficient for the lots that already existed when it went in.
If there were a need to charge for capacity upgrades, it seems such things should be billed separately and explicitly. (My electric bill itemizes hookup, transmission, and generation among other things.)
And absolutely none of it explains why septic should be disallowed!
- labawi 5y agoIf the infrastructure is available, it had to be built, and someone paid for it. If there wasn't a hookup before, then it seems reasonable to pay the full share to recoup the investment, even if the line is right there. Otherwise the infrastructure investment would have to be paid by someone else, or from other taxes. These days, septic should be disallowed, if a reasonable sewer is available, as these days the effluents contain all kinds of toxic and non-degradable stuff that poisons the land and ground water. Over here, lossy septic tanks are illegal. You can either hookup to a sewer, treat your wastewater in situ via certified processes or, under some conditions, use a non-draining septic tank and have the wastewater treated.