Hi All,
Please let us know if you like the UCO Reporter in this format:
Dave Israel
To view full screen left click once on little grey square at the right end of the top of frame: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
5/09 UCO Reporter
Monday, April 27, 2009
UCO REPORTER ON THE BLOG
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It is really nice but you cannot make it larger as it gets hidden under the left hand strip with the names etc. You would need to make the left strip narrower.
Mine goes to full screen fine with Vista, very clear. Great job. Can you redact?
mine went to full screen and I have XP- like it yes
I see the full screen with my XP also. Since I have this opportunity to be on the same page with the UCO Reporter, following is the text of a letter I emailed April 18 to The Editor for publication in the May issue of the Reporter. John Saporano acknowledged my text and wrote back that it was subject to the Editorial Board approval. Not published in the May issue I enquired to John about it and never received an answer back.
So here this text either as a preview to the June issue of the UCO Reporter or the subject of censorship by the editorial Board. Time will tell.
Lakeshore beautification and water problem
In the last few years, we have seen the devastation of our lakeshores and the expectation of solutions with recycling water, restoration etc...
Since January 2007, WPRF is collecting $5.31 a month from all of us, to create a fund of at least $2,000,000 for restoring the lakeshore. This project will last at least 3 years. Meanwhile the devastation continues.
The current Plan is to cover the total lakeshore with Geotube and sloping the banks to a 1:4 ratio. Past experience with Geotube, as can be seen behind Dover and Chatham G, while stopping the erosion does not beautify the lakeshore.
An Alternate Plan which would cost $1,000,000 dollars and be completed by the end of 2010 is now in the hands of UCO. Our monthly payment of $5.31 would stop at the end of 2009 .
The Alternate Plan basic assumption is that water level will always be a problem in South Florida. As in the past there will be good years and bad years. Trying to control this natural element plus the impact of the hurricanes, tropical storms, rainfall and drought periods is pouring money into a black hole. Century Village does not have the financial capacity to do that.
The Alternate Plan design eliminate this consideration by eliminating one of the two components ( Water line vs Grass line ) that is hurting the beauty of the lakes and lagoons. When the two don't meet it leaves open an area of sand and dirt or weeds that is a sore for the eyes. Having grass and aquatic plants meeting all the time with the water line eliminates the need to have the water line at a given level.
Control and maintenance of the lakeshore becomes then the critical elements of the Alternate Plan and this is achievable within affordable costs.
Please let UCO know of your preference for the $ 1,000,000. dollar Alternate Plan Beautification approach.
Andre Veilleux
Dear Andre: I admire and support your position on the lake shore issue. However, George Lowenstein does not. Until he is out of office, there is probably nothing we can do to push this further.
Andre:
It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY,your article
will EVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, AS
LONG AS THE CURRENT EDITORIAL BOARD
EXISTS. THEY ARE BIASED!
Thank you to all who are supporting my position.
I asked the following questions by writing to the President of UCO, the 4 UCO VP, Mr. Mark Levy and Mrs. Cruz of WPRF on April 16th 2009.
The only feed back so far is from Mr. Mark Levy who stated that WPRF is merely collecting the funds for UCO and it was not involved in any way with the lakeshore restoration plan.
Extracts from my April 16th 2009 letter:
Reference:
'' Waterways Restoration Feasibility Study '' submitted to UCO in February 2008 prepared by ELSAT 1LLC.
Page 1,
Quote: Overall cost to restore the banks of lakes and lagoons at the Village is initially estimated to be from $4,000,000 to $8,500,000.
Question: How come the RESTORATION to be done by UCO will cost $2,000,000 dollars when the study estimates are $ 4,000,000 to $ 8,500,000?
Page 2,
Quote: According to marks of new grass sods, the Village tested within the last year ( 2007) the geotube technology in a short section.....The sod that was stapled onto the geotube was also completely eroded away on the seepage face. The geotube will start to disintegrate once it will be exposed to direct sunlight when the water level will further recede during the drought season.
Question: Why is the Geotube solution retained by UCO for its Restoration of over 32,000 linear feet of lakeshore when it is performing so poorly in its previous experience as quoted by the report?
and further on Page 5
Quote: Geotubes were proven to be successful in bank restoration...The strenght of the material should be sufficient, in most cases, to hold the sand against erosion forces of both seepage and wave action. However geotubes are prone to disintegration when exposed to UV light and it should be covered with sod above the seepage zone and woven UV resistance material erosion control blanket below the sod.
Question: Why is UCO not installing UV resistance material erosion control blanket below the sod as recommended by the report?
Page 5,
Quote: Reconnaissance at the site revealed that the MAIN contribution to the erosion is the seepage action that occurs mainly during October and November when water elevation at the Village waterways recedes relatively fast.
Quote: According to our experience with erosion and dam-failure investigations, equipping the Village downstream weir with a flow control device will IMMENSELY help to protect the waterways against erosion. Such modification will prevent recurrence of the severe erosion that happened last fall ( 2006 ) because of the relatively rapid lake water residence, which induces high seepage rate.
Question: How come nothing is done quickly to eliminate the MAIN contributor to the erosion problem, seepage action, by equipping the downstream weir with a flow control device.
The project implementation will start next month.
Question ? Have we hired the specialists recommended by the report or are we doing it by the seat of our pants?
The fundamental question to ask is whether the report was circulated, read and understood by those making the decisions to proceed with a $ 2,000,000 dollars project to restore the lakeshore?
I am still waiting for an answer or contact from any of the UCO Officials as of this date. I understand that UCO long lasting tactic is to ignore the owners who question or complaint until they get fed up and go away.
Being a Snowbird, I am leaving the Village on the 29th... but not going away. Good sense will prevail one day I hope.
Andre Veilleux
Great idea! Much easier for snowbirds to read rather than having to go the UCO Reporter website.
Hi Grace
Apr 27, 2009 10:00:00 AM,
Please click on the Full Screen button at the top right of the UCO Reporter Frame.
Dave Israel
Isn’t it amazing – we expect nothing but the best from Dave Israel, and he never fails to deliver. EXCELECT JOB, again!!
Post a Comment