Using reclaimed water to irrigate your lawn is a no-brainer, right?
Phonedude
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA48BZV9CD.html
This article says that our water administrators are struggling
with the concept that delivering reclaimed water is just as
expensive as delivering regular county/city water. The pipes,
pumps, and construction all cost the same and the actual cost of
the water is just a small element of the equation in both cases.
Is this the end of the idea of using recycled/reclaimed water
instead of just letting run downstream? Even just pumping it
into the river has a huge cost apparently.
What's really going on here?
Comments?
PD
jvlcs
Even if it costs the same, aren't we saving the
drinking water...for drinking? I'm surprised that
reclaimed/recycled water isn't *more* expensive.
J
Phonedude
"jvlcs" <jvlc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3E50DA4B...@gte.net...
Agreed -- saving drinking water is paramount as the population
grows. What is bothering these people is the worry that
customers won't pay the same price for reclaimed water as for
"new" water. In other words, if there's no real savings then why
go to the expense and bother of separate systems? Almost 100% of
people will tell you they support reclaimed water, but what will
the reaction be when they find out it's going to cost them more
than they're paying now?
PD
bb
wrote:
>Agreed -- saving drinking water is paramount as the population
>grows.
Heaven forbid we should try and slow down the population growth. We
wouldn't want to offend the religious right voting block by taking
steps to slow the population down.
> What is bothering these people is the worry that
>customers won't pay the same price for reclaimed water as for
>"new" water.
If you want to water your plants, you'll pay the price. If regular
water isn't available, but reclaimed is, you'll either pay the price,
or have dead landscaping.
> In other words, if there's no real savings then why
>go to the expense and bother of separate systems?
As difficult as it is to understand the logic, how about it's the
ecologically sound thing to do? Didn't you at one time live by a lake
that had dried up? There are people that don't want us city folk
pumping the water out from under their homes. There is a huge problem
with saltwater intrusion that could make some ground water unuseable.
> Almost 100% of
>people will tell you they support reclaimed water, but what will
>the reaction be when they find out it's going to cost them more
>than they're paying now?
I paid a lot of money to hook up to St. Petersburg's system. It was
worth every penny.
bb
Clifton
news:hdt15v4o4vd2gmasv...@4ax.com...
> As difficult as it is to understand the logic, how about it's the
> ecologically sound thing to do? Didn't you at one time live by a lake
> that had dried up? There are people that don't want us city folk
> pumping the water out from under their homes. There is a huge problem
> with saltwater intrusion that could make some ground water unuseable.
While I may not necessarily agree with the tone, I agree with the point. It
costs us $X more every month here in Scottsdale to pay for recycling pick-up
once a week, rather than just regular garbage rounds twice a week. However,
we do it because (we think) we're helping the environment.
jvlcs
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:53:07 GMT, "Phonedude" <fone...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Agreed -- saving drinking water is paramount as the population
>>grows.
>
>
> Heaven forbid we should try and slow down the population growth. We
> wouldn't want to offend the religious right voting block by taking
> steps to slow the population down.
>
I am part of the 'religious right' and I(and
those I know) have no problem with taking measures
to slow the population growth.
>
>> What is bothering these people is the worry that
>>customers won't pay the same price for reclaimed water as for
>>"new" water.
>
>
> If you want to water your plants, you'll pay the price. If regular
> water isn't available, but reclaimed is, you'll either pay the price,
> or have dead landscaping.
>
Absolutely! And HUGE fines for those who think
the rules don't apply to them. I had a customer
that told me he waters whenever his lawn needs it
regardless of the day. He said he'd have to be
caught 4 times before the fines get close to the
cost of a new lawn. As of our conversation, he
hadn't been caught yet. This kind of attitude
turns neighbor against neighbor.
>
>> In other words, if there's no real savings then why
>>go to the expense and bother of separate systems?
>
>
> As difficult as it is to understand the logic, how about it's the
> ecologically sound thing to do? Didn't you at one time live by a lake
> that had dried up? There are people that don't want us city folk
> pumping the water out from under their homes. There is a huge problem
> with saltwater intrusion that could make some ground water unuseable.
>
Why make this a city/rural issue? I don't want
*anyone* pumping water from under my house! I will
be just as indignant with anyone doing harm to my
childrens' future.
>
>> Almost 100% of
>>people will tell you they support reclaimed water, but what will
>>the reaction be when they find out it's going to cost them more
>>than they're paying now?
>
>
> I paid a lot of money to hook up to St. Petersburg's system. It was
> worth every penny.
>
I'm hoping that Tampa jumps on the bandwagon.
Right now, you can tell that I don't water
illegally. :^(
J
> bb
Ron Gibson
> What if it costs as much as regular drinking water?
> This article says that our water administrators are struggling
> with the concept that delivering reclaimed water is just as
> expensive as delivering regular county/city water. The pipes,
> pumps, and construction all cost the same and the actual cost of
> the water is just a small element of the equation in both cases.
> Is this the end of the idea of using recycled/reclaimed water
> instead of just letting run downstream? Even just pumping it
> into the river has a huge cost apparently.
> What's really going on here?
> Comments?
Yeah, one huge one. We are getting screwed supporting a freakin
subdivision providing city services to there and it's damn near all
the way to Dade city.
This pisses me off so much I could scream. New Tampa. What a bad
joke played by Greco and others with a hand in the cookie jar.
I knew this was coming and commented on the huge costs of running city
utilities that require almost 15 miles of pipelines, etc.
Yet if you live half way between real Tampa and there you are SOL -
Start digging a well and a septic tank.
Where the hell is the precedent for this? Nowhere, except that fat cats
usually keep getting fatter.
The one that really caught my attention is that I needed to get a book
from the library. I hadn't yet been out that way. Well the library out
there is as big and more modern than the main branch downtown.
WTF is that about??? Are the taxes I pay worthless? Why is my
neighborhood library (and Seminole Heights I'm sure has more people
than "New Tampa") the size of a 7-11 store?
And the fat cats have done an excellent job of keeping this under wraps
(cost impact).
Well I have a solution. Charge them impact fees appropriate to the cost
to service them. There is no reason I can think of why we should be
paying for the jokers that live out there by raising our property taxes.
There are numerous other subdivisions out that way and they don't get
"exceptional" treatment.
--
Email - rgi...@ix.netcom.com
Home Page - http://rsgibson.com
FTP - ftp://rsgibson.com
FTP Uploads - ftp://upload.rsgibson.com (Requires Password)
Echo the Wonder Tube
>> drinking water...for drinking? I'm surprised that
>> reclaimed/recycled water isn't *more* expensive.
>
>Agreed -- saving drinking water is paramount as the population
>grows. What is bothering these people is the worry that
>customers won't pay the same price for reclaimed water as for
>"new" water. In other words, if there's no real savings then why
>go to the expense and bother of separate systems? Almost 100% of
>people will tell you they support reclaimed water, but what will
>the reaction be when they find out it's going to cost them more
>than they're paying now?
Just as important in Florida, reclaimed water is not being pumped from
the aquifer. The limestone bedrock of Florida relies on the pressure
of the water stored in the aquifers to support the weight of the land.
Remove the water and the land starts to sink.
Ron Gibson
> I paid a lot of money to hook up to St. Petersburg's system. It was
> worth every penny.
Should have moved to New Tampa and got a free ride.
Ron Gibson
> I am part of the 'religious right' and I(and
> those I know) have no problem with taking measures
> to slow the population growth.
New Tampa is a pinnacle of stupidity in Urban Sprawl. Annexation of
that area was idiotic and IMO, a shady deal most likely.
> Absolutely! And HUGE fines for those who think
> the rules don't apply to them. I had a customer
> that told me he waters whenever his lawn needs it
> regardless of the day. He said he'd have to be
> caught 4 times before the fines get close to the
> cost of a new lawn. As of our conversation, he
> hadn't been caught yet. This kind of attitude
> turns neighbor against neighbor.
No. Fair impact fees and a special tax assessment is what the proper
course of action should be.
> >> In other words, if there's no real savings then why
> >>go to the expense and bother of separate systems?
> > As difficult as it is to understand the logic, how about it's the
> > ecologically sound thing to do? Didn't you at one time live by a lake
> > that had dried up? There are people that don't want us city folk
> > pumping the water out from under their homes. There is a huge problem
> > with saltwater intrusion that could make some ground water unuseable.
Ecologically sound???? That area was built on one of the most pristine
and beautiful parts left in this county. It also sits on top of a major
well field. It was unsound to build there. They leveled all that
beautiful countryside, replaced with cookie cutter homes and topped it
all off with a asphalt, so much more pleasing than the native fauna.
I used to go up there years ago. You could walk down to the
Hillsborough river and feel like Huckleberry Finn fishing off of the
banks. Now most likely a cop would arrest you for trespassing.
> Why make this a city/rural issue? I don't want
> *anyone* pumping water from under my house! I will
> be just as indignant with anyone doing harm to my
> childrens' future.
Because if New Tampa isn't rural, then neither is the Ocala State
Forest. It is rural and like every other Tom Dick and Harry that moves
into a rural subdivision, they should have been put on local private
utilities, or established their own.
> I'm hoping that Tampa jumps on the bandwagon.
> Right now, you can tell that I don't water
> illegally. :^(
This water issue is just a symptom of the larger problem of the foolish,
most likely corrupt annexation of a suburb 15 miles removed from the
city proper.
BTW, I have a friend that lives on Livingston and Hanna about where the
interstate crosses it. He is 10 miles closer than "New Tampa".
And I let you guess if he can get city utilities, even though they would
almost run under his home to get to New Tampa.
CCF
SOW. The population has exploded and there isn't enough H2O out here.
The thing is it may be just as expsnive but it increases the actual
supply of water available whihc helps keep costs down. Without using the
reclaimed H2O you're talking about rapidly dwindling H2O supplies and
then you get major price hikes.
Phonedude
> bb wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:53:07 GMT, "Phonedude"
<fone...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Agreed -- saving drinking water is paramount as the
population
> >>grows.
> >
> >
> > Heaven forbid we should try and slow down the population
growth. We
> > wouldn't want to offend the religious right voting block by
taking
> > steps to slow the population down.
> >
>
> I am part of the 'religious right' and I(and
> those I know) have no problem with taking measures
> to slow the population growth.
Pay no attention to bb -- he's just, as he always is, in attack
mode. His postings consist almost exclusively of attacks on
someone. What he misses is that here in Florida, and especially
the Tampa Bay area, population growth is mainly external --
people moving here from somewhere else. Reproductive pressures
are offset by the large numbers of retirees who leave us each
year. Each year, according to the most popular stats I see,
Florida absorbs an influx from other States on the order of
200,000 people. This equates to establishing a new City of Tampa
each and every year.
I understand the point, and if reclaimed water were available to
me I would sign up for it. However, I wonder if you can say the
same for the great majority of the population -- I doubt it.
jvlcs
> Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:08:25 UTC, jvlcs <jvlc...@gte.net> Noted:
>
>
>> I am part of the 'religious right' and I(and
>>those I know) have no problem with taking measures
>>to slow the population growth.
>
>
> New Tampa is a pinnacle of stupidity in Urban Sprawl. Annexation of
> that area was idiotic and IMO, a shady deal most likely.
>
Agreed. The cost per person for the satellite
police, fire and library buildings/personel is
probably staggering. I feel sorry for the people
who live between here and there.
I've got a good one for you. My parents(and 8
other families) live on a dead end road that is
owned by the people who live at the end. They have
tried to turn the road over to the county but the
county refuses to take over. Everyone should share
in the upkeep but how do you force them if they
refuse?
>
>> Absolutely! And HUGE fines for those who think
>>the rules don't apply to them. I had a customer
>>that told me he waters whenever his lawn needs it
>>regardless of the day. He said he'd have to be
>>caught 4 times before the fines get close to the
>>cost of a new lawn. As of our conversation, he
>>hadn't been caught yet. This kind of attitude
>>turns neighbor against neighbor.
>
>
> No. Fair impact fees and a special tax assessment is what the proper
> course of action should be.
>
Impact fees should be in force but fines are
necessary for those who don't play by the rules.
Fines should always be high enough to be a determent.
>
>>>>In other words, if there's no real savings then why
>>>>go to the expense and bother of separate systems?
>>>
>
>>>As difficult as it is to understand the logic, how about it's the
>>>ecologically sound thing to do? Didn't you at one time live by a lake
>>>that had dried up? There are people that don't want us city folk
>>>pumping the water out from under their homes. There is a huge problem
>>>with saltwater intrusion that could make some ground water unuseable.
>>
>
> Ecologically sound???? That area was built on one of the most pristine
> and beautiful parts left in this county. It also sits on top of a major
> well field. It was unsound to build there. They leveled all that
> beautiful countryside, replaced with cookie cutter homes and topped it
> all off with a asphalt, so much more pleasing than the native fauna.
>
> I used to go up there years ago. You could walk down to the
> Hillsborough river and feel like Huckleberry Finn fishing off of the
> banks. Now most likely a cop would arrest you for trespassing.
>
>
>> Why make this a city/rural issue? I don't want
>>*anyone* pumping water from under my house! I will
>>be just as indignant with anyone doing harm to my
>>childrens' future.
>
>
> Because if New Tampa isn't rural, then neither is the Ocala State
> Forest. It is rural and like every other Tom Dick and Harry that moves
> into a rural subdivision, they should have been put on local private
> utilities, or established their own.
>
I think you missed my point, Ron. I was
responding to the statement, "There are people
that don't want us city folk pumping the water out
from under their homes." I have a problem with
*anyone* who pumps water from under my home
regardless of whether they are in the city or
rural area.
J
Echo the Wonder Tube
>Ron Gibson wrote:
>> Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:08:25 UTC, jvlcs <jvlc...@gte.net> Noted:
>>> I am part of the 'religious right' and I(and
>>>those I know) have no problem with taking measures
>>>to slow the population growth.
>>
>> New Tampa is a pinnacle of stupidity in Urban Sprawl. Annexation of
>> that area was idiotic and IMO, a shady deal most likely.
>
> Agreed. The cost per person for the satellite
>police, fire and library buildings/personel is
>probably staggering. I feel sorry for the people
>who live between here and there.
The real costs are in the roads and water and sewer infrastructure.
In the SF Bay Area, one of the first big backlashes against sprawl and
development came when towns realized they were getting shafted by
developers. Basically developers promised increased tax revenues from
the property and sales taxes from the new residents and a more stable
population base for education, etc. Turns out that a lot of places
started losing money overall. Yeah, their tax revenues went up, but
not as much as their expenses for maintaining the infrastructure. And
since it was all low density development, the infrastructure costs
even more per new resident.
Adrain Barton
>New Tampa is a pinnacle of stupidity in Urban Sprawl. Annexation of
>that area was idiotic and IMO, a shady deal most likely.
The only reason they annexed it was that Dick Greco lived there, and
the city charter says that the Mayor has to live in the city limits.
Then, after they annexed it, Greco moved to Harbor Island because the
traffic was so bad. When he moved, they should have nullified the
annexation.
jvlcs
I didn't even want to start on the
infrastructure expense, but...
There's been a number of developers(over the
years) that built 'communities' and then turn the
streets and utilities over to the city/county. In
just a few short years, the government finds that
the developer cut corners and taxpayers will have
to foot the bill for new roads/pipelines etc.
There's a development, in north Tampa, that was
built on a peat bog(marsh). It was cheaper to just
dump sand/top soil on top of it so just wait til
we have a good rainy season!
J
bb
> Impact fees should be in force but fines are
>necessary for those who don't play by the rules.
>Fines should always be high enough to be a determent.
I'd say the fines in Pinellas are stiff enough to deter illegal
useage. I bought a commercial property in October. When the power
was turned on the automatic sprinkler system that runs off the well
came on. I wasn't even aware it was running as it come on at night.
I received a notice that I will receive a minimum of $500.00 fine,
plus have to appear in court. Fortunately, a quick phone call got the
situation straightened out.
> I think you missed my point, Ron. I was
>responding to the statement, "There are people
>that don't want us city folk pumping the water out
>from under their homes."
That statement was made because most of the water is pumped from rural
areas and sent to the cities, and not the other way around. It's the
people in those rural areas that suffer the brunt of over pumping of
well fields.
>I have a problem with
>*anyone* who pumps water from under my home
>regardless of whether they are in the city or
>rural area.
As you should. But, if you live in the city and someone is pumping
water from under your house, it's most likely your next door neighbor,
not someone out in the country.
bb
Echo the Wonder Tube
> I didn't even want to start on the
>infrastructure expense, but...
> There's been a number of developers(over the
>years) that built 'communities' and then turn the
>streets and utilities over to the city/county. In
>just a few short years, the government finds that
>the developer cut corners and taxpayers will have
>to foot the bill for new roads/pipelines etc.
>There's a development, in north Tampa, that was
>built on a peat bog(marsh). It was cheaper to just
>dump sand/top soil on top of it so just wait til
>we have a good rainy season!
Heh. Yeah, I used to work for Heidt and Associates, a surveying
company in South Tampa (right next to Burns Steakhouse) that did a lot
of the surveying of the suburbs up in North Tampa and out by Brandon.
I remember civil engineers grumbling about development companies (I
won't name names cause I can't remember which companies developed
which properties specifically) basically telling the engineers what
they'd find on sites instead of asking for unbiased engineering
opinions. The result in one cheap-ass subdivision out near Brandon
was a line that ran the whole way across the subdivision. You could
stand up on the road (which was built up on a berm to keep it from
getting flooded; it was above the houses, if that tells you anything)
and look across the subdivision and see cracks running through the
sides of houses where all the land on one side had settled down about
a foot after the houses were built. Along that line, the houses,
their walls, and their foundations had just... broken right in half
and gone down with the sinking land.
Ron Gibson
> I think you missed my point, Ron. I was
> responding to the statement, "There are people
> that don't want us city folk pumping the water out
> from under their homes." I have a problem with
> *anyone* who pumps water from under my home
> regardless of whether they are in the city or
> rural area.
Well in a sense every well pumps water out form another someone elses'
house.
BTW, there are also losses from leakage on lines that long. It's
nowhere as large as the pumping capacity but is yet another waste of
resources.
The people that get really upset are those that have their own wells
next to a farm with huge pumps.
You can literally record a local drop in water table when those high
capacity pumps are going full blast.
Back to the buddy I mentioned. Two years ago he was pumping mud, yet
those lines out to the boonies for New Tampa were doing a fine job for
them.
He's lived there for 30 years (I got a funny story about that I put
below) and that never happened before.
First time I went to visit him I said to myself, "Damn, this place looks
familiar." Turns out he bought the home from the family who had a cutie
pie daughter I used to date years ago :)
Ron Gibson
> > New Tampa is a pinnacle of stupidity in Urban Sprawl. Annexation of
> > that area was idiotic and IMO, a shady deal most likely.
> Agreed. The cost per person for the satellite
> police, fire and library buildings/personel is
> probably staggering. I feel sorry for the people
> who live between here and there.
BTW, I just had a great idea and I don't know why no one has thought of
it. Instead of pumping sewage 15 miles to be treated and laying 15
miles of pipeline for recycled water I would think it would be a lot
cheaper just to build a treatment plant in that area, pump sewage to the
treatment center and then you only need small distribution lines
instead of miles of 18" line.
Off hand I dunno the cost for a small treatment plant, but my guess is
that is would be cheaper than the right of way and material costs for a
pipeline.
The pipeline does have one advantage - hardly any maintenance costs.
However, there have been some stunning developments in first stage water
treatment. Did you know there are bacteria that will even eat
chlorinated hydrocarbons like carbon tetrachloride?
For emergency purposes tie the plant into the already existing sewage
lines so the plant can be bypassed should that option be needed.
> I've got a good one for you. My parents(and 8
> other families) live on a dead end road that is
> owned by the people who live at the end. They have
> tried to turn the road over to the county but the
> county refuses to take over. Everyone should share
> in the upkeep but how do you force them if they
> refuse?
You know the County Line Road exit on I-4 just past Plant City? My
deceased grandparents property was at the end of it when it was a
dirt road. About 10 families lived down it and they tried for years just
to get them to put down oyster shell if nothing else.
Now look. My aunts and uncles own about 1000 feet of frontage 100 acres
deep on the new road and I expect soon for them to get a huge offer for
the land.
Ron Gibson
Noted:
> >New Tampa is a pinnacle of stupidity in Urban Sprawl. Annexation of
> >that area was idiotic and IMO, a shady deal most likely.
> The only reason they annexed it was that Dick Greco lived there, and
> the city charter says that the Mayor has to live in the city limits.
> Then, after they annexed it, Greco moved to Harbor Island because the
> traffic was so bad. When he moved, they should have nullified the
> annexation.
It's crazy. Why don't we annex Wimauma.
Ron Gibson
<ri...@violetshiversBITEMEYOUSPAMMINGSCUM.com> Noted:
> Heh. Yeah, I used to work for Heidt and Associates, a surveying
> company in South Tampa (right next to Burns Steakhouse) that did a lot
> of the surveying of the suburbs up in North Tampa and out by Brandon.
> I remember civil engineers grumbling about development companies (I
> won't name names cause I can't remember which companies developed
> which properties specifically) basically telling the engineers what
> they'd find on sites instead of asking for unbiased engineering
> opinions. The result in one cheap-ass subdivision out near Brandon
> was a line that ran the whole way across the subdivision. You could
I tell ya, if I was buying a new home again based on what I've seen I
wouldn't even consider Hillsborough County. Too much corruption,
shady contractors and developers.
OTOH, I've a lot of personal experience with homes in Pasco as I owned
one and a friend of mine used to detail and prep new homes in Lake
Padgett Estates to get them ready for sale. Basically she came in after
all the work was done and spiffied things up.
The difference in the quality of construction AND price was remarkable.
At that time 60K in Lake Padgett got you a beautiful two car garage,
split level home.
I mean I checked them out thoroughly down to crawling through the attic
examining the trusses and even nailing. All I saw used quality
materials and if you had a level and a plumbob you'd have been very
pleased.
Of course I'm sure there are turkeys there too. But there seems to be
several "can't miss" developments in Pasco as opposed to the "The house
is supposed to lean like that" crap you get in Hillsborough.
I absolutely love Lake Padgett Estates. I've been familiar with that
subdivision for years (30+). We used to have a small storefront business
up that way before they started Phase II and III. It's a eerily quiet
but dynamic community. And you should see their clubhouse, tennis
courts, etc. You get way more amenities than Hillborough developments
for your dollar.
Of course that could be different now. But you could always buy one of
the 1980 vintage homes which were very modern and hardly differ from
todays design trends.
I love that area. Man do I miss it. It was like another little world
just north of Tampa. In fact I lived in that area almost 20 years, so I
might as well say I was born in Tampa but spent my young adult years in
Land O' Lakes.
Phonedude
"Ron Gibson" <rgi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:eleS4DQ3N6dS-p...@user-33qts8s.dialup.mindspring
.com...
> Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:09:10 UTC, jvlcs <jvlc...@gte.net> Noted:
>
> > > New Tampa is a pinnacle of stupidity in Urban Sprawl.
Annexation of
> > > that area was idiotic and IMO, a shady deal most likely.
>
> > Agreed. The cost per person for the satellite
> > police, fire and library buildings/personel is
> > probably staggering. I feel sorry for the people
> > who live between here and there.
>
> BTW, I just had a great idea and I don't know why no one has
thought of
> it. Instead of pumping sewage 15 miles to be treated and
laying 15
> miles of pipeline for recycled water I would think it would be
a lot
> cheaper just to build a treatment plant in that area, pump
sewage to the
> treatment center and then you only need small distribution
lines
> instead of miles of 18" line.
>
> Off hand I dunno the cost for a small treatment plant, but my
guess is
> that is would be cheaper than the right of way and material
costs for a
> pipeline.
On the surface it sounds like a good idea, but do you really
think all those high-powered people in New Tampa are going to sit
still for a waste-treatment facility in *their* neighborhood?
>
[snip]
PD
Ron Gibson
> > Off hand I dunno the cost for a small treatment plant, but my
> > guess is that is would be cheaper than the right of way and material
> > costs for a pipeline.
> On the surface it sounds like a good idea, but do you really
> think all those high-powered people in New Tampa are going to sit
> still for a waste-treatment facility in *their* neighborhood?
Oh no doubt they don't want anything unsavory or anything that distracts
from their Ivory Tower status within a 10 mile radius.
BTW, what's up with these malls going in the middle of nowhere. I was
at a Staples the other day looking for ink cartridges.
I asked where was the next closest store (I was at the store at Horizon
Park) was and they not too bright clerk said Citrus Park.
Hell, I'd order them through the mail before I'd driver to Citrus Park.
That's a long ass drive. I've used to go there all the time when I
lived in LOLakes and it's a long drive even from there.
My bet is not enough people are gonna want to go there to keep it solid
financially.
Sidebar: If anyone knows of a place to obtain supplies for refilling
Epson ink tanks for an injet please let me know. I've had this Stylus
800+ for years and it is very fast, works with everything and cost me
about $200. Anything today with the same capabilities will cost me from
$3-400 and most likely would have to be a postscript printer.
I may have to replace it as it appears either local stores are not
going to carry my cartridge anymore or Epson is no longer making them.
I did finally find some at Staples by USF and they were marked down from
$18 to $4.50 so I bought 4 refills. That gives me some time t make
arrangements.
I might try this outfit that refurbishes printers and get a HP LASER if
I have to.
-=ratz0fratzo=-
>Sidebar: If anyone knows of a place to obtain supplies for refilling
>Epson ink tanks for an injet please let me know. I've had this Stylus
>800+ for years and it is very fast, works with everything and cost me
>about $200. Anything today with the same capabilities will cost me from
>$3-400 and most likely would have to be a postscript printer.
>
>I may have to replace it as it appears either local stores are not
>going to carry my cartridge anymore or Epson is no longer making them.
>I did finally find some at Staples by USF and they were marked down from
>$18 to $4.50 so I bought 4 refills. That gives me some time t make
>arrangements.
>
>I might try this outfit that refurbishes printers and get a HP LASER if
>I have to.
Ask this in comp.periphs.printers. There are a few vendors there who
cater to the re-filling crowd, and many who can point you in the right
direction.
AFWIW, to go PS with an Epson is going to be about $600. You'd have
to get the 1280 which is now about $499 (damn, I paid 600 a year ago)
and the Epson Stylus RIP software which is another 100 bux. It's a
hell of a printer though. Wide format, six colors, big resolution,
awesome photographs, full bleed printing.
________________________________
-=ratz0fratzo=-
Ron Gibson
> There's a development, in north Tampa, that was
> built on a peat bog(marsh). It was cheaper to just
> dump sand/top soil on top of it so just wait til
> we have a good rainy season!
Reminds me of the one I mentioned before - The developer just got the
roads in, lots set up and a decorative entrance gateway in.
Then the rainy season set in and the whole time it was under 4-6 inches
of water :)
Phonedude
.com...
LOL! Been out that way recently? I moved out of there in
September 2001 and it was exploding then and the pace is
accelerating. The mall is jammed most evenings and all weekend.
PD
[snip]
Ron Gibson
Noted:
Late answer, but this is the first time in months I'm caught up to the
number on articles.
> Ask this in comp.periphs.printers. There are a few vendors there who
> cater to the re-filling crowd, and many who can point you in the right
> direction.
OK.
> AFWIW, to go PS with an Epson is going to be about $600. You'd have
> to get the 1280 which is now about $499 (damn, I paid 600 a year ago)
> and the Epson Stylus RIP software which is another 100 bux. It's a
> hell of a printer though. Wide format, six colors, big resolution,
> awesome photographs, full bleed printing.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an Epson, although I love their
printers and they are well supported. Also that little PC shop in the
strip mall on Fowler at 15Th-2nd, behind the Popeye's and other stores
directly on Fowler, is an authorized Epson repair center.
I just dread buying another printer. This one works with Windoze, DOS,
OS/2, and Linux. Last time I looked buying a printer capable of that
was like at least $300, up from the $200 I paid for the one I got now.
Damn it I hate the fact they are flooding the market with lobotomized
printers that you might as well buy a new printer as buy new color ink.
There are so many models finding ink gets harder all the time.
I really don't need color either. Never have needed it so a B&W printer
that could do Postscript Level 1 (IIRC that designation) would most
likely work out fine if I can find one refurbished.
Three are a lot of things I don't like about HP, but they make a good
LASER printer.
That site I mentioned (the link is not handy) last time I checked, had
all the win printers (This business refurbishes and sells returns for
several makers) in stock. If you wanted one like I need, of course
there was a waiting list :(
I'm hoping I can refill the cartridges on this OK.
-=ratz0fratzo=-
>It wouldn't necessarily have to be an Epson, although I love their
>printers and they are well supported. Also that little PC shop in the
>strip mall on Fowler at 15Th-2nd, behind the Popeye's and other stores
>directly on Fowler, is an authorized Epson repair center.
You're hard pressed to find a PS printer on the cheap these days. HP
makes one and if memory serves, it was in the $500 range, and not half
the printer the Epson 1280 is. Even when you take into consideration
the chipped ink cartridges that Epson uses, they're still the better
printer hands down, that is if you are looking for the best quality.
>I just dread buying another printer. This one works with Windoze, DOS,
>OS/2, and Linux. Last time I looked buying a printer capable of that
>was like at least $300, up from the $200 I paid for the one I got now.
>
>Damn it I hate the fact they are flooding the market with lobotomized
>printers that you might as well buy a new printer as buy new color ink.
Yep. The price gap between professional quality printers and prosumer
or consumer models is getting very wide. They figured out who their
market is and produce accordingly. It's getting to the point where if
you are going to want a pro level printer, get ready to shell out at
least a grand. Won't be too far away.
>I really don't need color either. Never have needed it so a B&W printer
>that could do Postscript Level 1 (IIRC that designation) would most
>likely work out fine if I can find one refurbished.
>
>Three are a lot of things I don't like about HP, but they make a good
>LASER printer.
Laser is the way to go if you want b/w and low cost. Up front, the
laser is more expensive, but it's cost per sheet is a lot lower than
ink jet. Plus, it's easier to get PS support in a laser. Laser sucks
for color, compared to a good quality ink jet.
________________________________
-=ratz0fratzo=-
Ron Gibson
Noted:
> You're hard pressed to find a PS printer on the cheap these days. HP
> makes one and if memory serves, it was in the $500 range, and not half
> the printer the Epson 1280 is. Even when you take into consideration
> the chipped ink cartridges that Epson uses, they're still the better
> printer hands down, that is if you are looking for the best quality.
Well I'm a Epson fan for sure. Like I said I just dread the thought of
shopping for a new one because the sales people have nowhere the
training to answer critical questions and I usually have to dig in the
manual to see if there is an emulation mode that will work for me.
> >Damn it I hate the fact they are flooding the market with lobotomized
> >printers that you might as well buy a new printer as buy new color ink.
> Yep. The price gap between professional quality printers and prosumer
> or consumer models is getting very wide. They figured out who their
> market is and produce accordingly. It's getting to the point where if
> you are going to want a pro level printer, get ready to shell out at
> least a grand. Won't be too far away.
I know if I have to buy another it's going to take a lot of research,
more than I want to do. That price gap you mentioned is more today than
it was 5 years ago, damnit.
> Laser is the way to go if you want b/w and low cost. Up front, the
> laser is more expensive, but it's cost per sheet is a lot lower than
> ink jet. Plus, it's easier to get PS support in a laser. Laser sucks
> for color, compared to a good quality ink jet.
See that's the key there. I that several older HP LASER's will have the
compatibility I need. What I'm not so sure about are the newer models.
They are usually very fast too and I'm the impatient type.
If you get by Office Depot look for a LASER color printer they have, IBM
I believe for about $1000. That's a lot of money but print a test
page. The color is stunning.
Thank God I really don't need color.
Damn, I just took a quick look at one refurb outlet. They have a HP
1200 for $300, but I don't think it's a postscript model.
Ron Gibson
Noted:
> You're hard pressed to find a PS printer on the cheap these days. HP
> makes one and if memory serves, it was in the $500 range, and not half
> the printer the Epson 1280 is. Even when you take into consideration
Hmmm...this one looks good after all. Here's a quick spec sheet. I
wonder if Postscript Level II is backwards compatible with level I, IOW
will it understand level I commands?
This one looks good for $300. Very fast and I like that.
HP LaserJet 1200 series:
15 pages per minute
exclusive hp instant-on fuser for power consumption
Savings and 10-second first page out
1200 dpi output
90 MHz Motorola Coldfire
Processor
250-sheet paper input bin
10-sheet priority feed tray
8 MB RAM (upgradeable to 72 MB)
protected, horizontal paper path
10,000 page duty cycle
separate 1284-B parallel and USB hot ports
hp printer language PostScript 2 emulation, PCL 5e and PCL 6
hp ultraprecise print cartridge for improved grayscale images