I have one question and one comment.
First the comment. As evidenced by the fact that someone recently won the 300+ million powerball, itappears that the five minutes (in the last 8 years) is risky enough for the City to think it prudent to implement this new ordinance. No telling when a group of unsupervised youths are going to illegally open a fire hydrant of your street corner on a hot August day.
Next the question: why is it that some of the emails I receive from the list consistently show-up in junk mail and some consistently show-up in my in-box. I've notice that anyone showing support for the DFL endorsed candidate show-up in the latter, whereas any dissenting opinon shows-up in the former :)
Dennis Plante
Jordan
P.S. - as a licensed General Contractor - I would recomment that become buddies with a City licensed plumber (a six-pack on a Sunday afternoon during a Packers game shoudl do it), find-out exactly what needs to be done, and do the work yourself.
>From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Mpls list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [Mpls] Back-flow preventers
>Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:33:02 -0600
>
>Here's a post that will have my anti-bureaucracy and landlord friends
>chuckling with "I told you so..."
>
>So we're selling our house (anyone want to live in prestigious East
>Kingfield?). Part of the selling process is getting a Truth-In-Housing
>inspection.
>
>Our abode - lovingly upgraded from the rental property it was when we bought
>it - passed with flying colors...except for the dreaded "back-flow
>preventer."
>
>These small pieces of shrapnel apparently keep water from flowing into the
>city's water system if somehow there is negative pressure. We need three of
>them. Two are $5 parts that screw on our exterior hose faucet and the one in
>our laundry tub.
>
>The third is a bit more problematic...it goes on the water supply to our
>boiler. That means cutting copper pipe, installing the thing, adding a
>second shut-off valve...in other words, a plumber and a permit.
>
>Since our plumbing was upgraded three years ago, I asked the inspector what
>the deal was. "New requirement as of June 1," he explained. "It's a silly
>thing...you'd probably only need one if a car hit the fire hydrant outside
>AND your boiler water supply was turned on...then the negative pressure
>might suck the water out of your radiators into the city system."
>
>Anyone with a boiler knows how infrequently they add water to their system.
>Our water supply has probably been on for a grand total of five minutes in
>the 8 years we've owned the house. The odds of negative pressure occurring
>WHILE the water supply is on roughly match the chances of winning the
>Powerball.
>
>So, my question: why was this requirement added? What was the justification?
>
>As always, I'll accede to superior info, but right now, this looks like one
>silly regulation.
>
>David Brauer
>King Field
>
>_______________________________________
>
>Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
>Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
