Is it fair to require individual homeowners to pay for their own sustainable drainage system (green roof, natural infiltration, rainwater basins), without any kind of contribution?
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes, it requires individual homeowners to have a drainage system. bathroom water and washing water are reused for every home.
no, it's unfair.
i used to have a 20-stall barn that i leased, and through that experience, i learned a lot about what i would want if/when i built my own. i never did; i have always had to make do or make changes in an already existing facility. it had automatic waterers (heated) in the stalls, half of the barn was built against a hill, so that on one side, half of the barn was underground. the whole area above the stalls was for hay storage, to be dropped down into the feeders in the stalls. speaking of the stalls, way down under the stalls were railroad ties, then 18 inches of sand on that, shavings needless to say, the stalls never got wet. we picked the stalls twice a day, and the barn smelled like shavings and clean horses all the time. now, the waterers were always a headache, and you never knew if a horse was drinking or not, and if there was ever a short in one of the waterers, and a horse got shocked even one time, he would never go back and drink from it. so i turned off all of the waterers and hung buckets in the stalls and pulled a hose down the aisle to fill them. still the best way, more work, but you can keep track of what is going on with your horse. oh yes, the overhead hay storage was a dusty headache; it also made the barn hotter when the loft was full and impaired the circulation, even though there were several vents. i would try not to even let anyone up there while there were horses still in the stalls because of the dust that was created by walking in the loft. one thing that i did appreciate was that half of the barn was against the dirt; even in the summer, it was cool in the barn. i also consider it important to have a solid window in every stall that opens wide enough for the horse to comfortably get his head out. there are lots of reasons for this, not to mention the fresh air, but it lessens the boredom, which in turn lessens the weaving, cribbing, and kicking the stalls. i like concrete for the wash rack and alley, and it should be wide enough that horses can be tied on either side and still be groomed. also, if the wash stall has a window, just like the stall window, your horses will walk in much easier because they can see out and don't feel like they are going into a dead end. you can always close it when you get your horse tied. of course, you will want a hot water heater just for the wash rack. if money isn't an issue, a small bathroom is a must, and well-planned, locked tack rooms i always dreamed of having, within the large tack rooms, partitions for each individual's tack that they could lock up and know that their stuff would never be used or touched by anyone else while they were gone. keep in mind, everyone that boarded there wasn't family, so that was a big issue that had to be addressed on a regular basis. boy, i could go on and on; i guess i already have. no, i don't like mats; i have tried them, would rather have good drainage with shavings. i personally don't like cross ties, but every stable has them and uses them, and most of the time, successfully, but then there is always the horse that just flips for no reason, and you have to haul them off seriously. i would prefer individual places in front of the stall meant for tying, along with a blanket bar out of reach of where the horse can't chew. oh yeah, a doctoring/clipping chute somewhere in an out-of-the-way but well-lit area. i guess i'd better stop; we all have lots of ideas. hope this helps a little, and one more thing, you never have too many lights with convenient places for switches.
not really, as it is part of the public system in one way or another.
no. in my opinion, we should all contribute to solving the problems, as flooding is not an individual problem, but a common one affecting all of society.
no
people who are not aware of the costs of living near the water or simply haven't informed themselves about future costs should receive assistance. if the costs are too high, they should receive support to relocate.
yes.
no, that is not fair. when you give them eur 10.00 - eur 15.00 for every square meter of impervious surface, the government saves a lot of money, especially related to the european water framework directive.
yes, it is okay for the homeowners to pay some of it, but the government has to help.
if you cut off the water from the sewage system, a good motivation factor could be to pay a percentage of the sewage tax back to the individual household. this has been introduced in copenhagen and is currently causing a lot of investments in sustainable drainage. so i would suggest that it would be fair to refund a share of the sewage tax.
i don't think it's fair that only some citizens should pay for a preventive action that is not solely caused by them. it should be a collective effort.
yes. the tech is available.
over a longer timespan, yes. but as a first-time investment, no. maybe provide some funding for those willing to contribute some themselves.
yes, to some extent, but it is not realistic. there should be some nice advantages to doing so and a legal requirement.
no.
that depends on whether they are required to obtain a sustainable system. otherwise, the income should be taken into account so that everyone is equally positioned to pay for the system.
no
no. but it is also a very big problem that the municipalities have issues with maintaining the installations in private households. that is a problem with this technique.
no. as i see it, it is not the homeowners who are the problem but the whole society. infrastructure, parking spaces, etc. prevent the water from infiltrating.
no. it should be financed through taxes somehow. maybe people should be able to obtain bonuses by acting more green (e.g. by investing in a green roof).
for the last question: i'm studying environmental technology.
yes, if they are then given a reduction in taxation because of the reduced amount of water going to the water treatment plant from their ground.
it's hard to tell. it depends on the income of the individual owner. expenses could be shared among the citizens in the form of a taxation system.
no. the success of the system depends on the participation of everyone. the person who has paid for their own drainage system should not suffer because the neighbor has not.
sustainable drainage systems should therefore be planned and implemented by the municipalities.
i think it is a municipality assignment, but some user money will help the process along.
no, the state should definitely contribute with subsidies or similar.
no, there should be some kind of incentive; it could be a tax reduction.
yes, because otherwise the cost of dealing with the water coming from their house will be borne by the rest of society.
no. rudersdal municipality just the other day decided that homeowners who want to drain on their own land will receive money.
again, the way you ask the question is biased.
i am not sure i understand the question. but i think it is fair that the individual house owner pays for their own suds without paying further tax to the collective system.