Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
I have been watching the water crisis in Detroit for some time now and I have been amazed that it is not a bigger story. If you haven’t heard, the new city Administrator of the City of Detroit that was appointed by the Governor and his Water Department have been turning off the water of needy citizens in Detroit when their past due bills are as little as $150.00. In a city with over 20% unemployment and countless vacant buildings, it seems like Detroit is slowly being destroyed.
“It may not have been a police crackdown, but what she witnessed was definitely a crackdown of a sort. Since last year, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department has been turning off water at the homes of customers behind on their bills. The shut-off campaign comes at a time of crisis and hastened recovery for Detroit, which became the largest American city to ever file for bankruptcy last summer. The value of the bonds associated with the water department’s debt comes to $5.7 billion, which constitutes almost one-third of the amount estimated to have pushed Detroit into bankruptcy.
The campaign to crack down on overdue bills—which is aimed at customers who are more than two months behind on their bills or who owe more than $150—has been described by activists and scholars alike as an effort, pushed by the city’s emergency manager, Kevyn Orr, to get rid of the bad debt associated with the water department and prep the public entity for privatization.
In a city where the median household income is less than half the national average, 38 percent of residents live below the poverty line and 23 percent are unemployed, it comes as no surprise that at least 40 percent of customers are delinquent on their bills.
The water shut-offs have taken no prisoners. Since this year’s shut-offs started at the end of March, at least 15,000 Detroit households have had their water turned off. But the campaign, a tactic designed to pressure Detroiters into paying their water bills, began with little or no publicity last year, when 24,000 homes had their water shut off, says Darryl Latimer, the deputy director of the water department.” The Atlantic
Since last year, over 34,000 homes have had their water shut off by the City of Detroit and hardly anyone outside of Michigan has noticed. While I am sure that there are some real scofflaws in some of those 34,000 homes, many more are behind in their water payments because they are already strapped for financial resources. When you see the number of unemployed and the statistic that 38 percent of Detroit residents live below the poverty line, it seems clear that a large percentage of the home shut off from an essential human need, do not have the ability to pay.
Should any city be allowed to cut off water to needy residents for any amount? With the shenanigans that went on to get Detroit into bankruptcy, I guess I should not be surprised at the idea that an essential human need can be denied American citizens over such small amounts of money. Is there any hope for the up to 100,000 citizens impacted by the water shut-off?
Lately some of the citizens of Detroit have been hitting the streets to demonstrate against the cutoffs and some have even resorted to illegally turning the water back on. However, many are trying not to make waves because they fear repercussions if government agencies find out that their water service has been cut off.
“Residents targeted by the shut-off campaign have been reluctant to speak up. Some have stayed quiet because they’ve resorted to illegally hiring plumbers, and others—who are without water and relying on neighbors and friends for drinking water and showers—are afraid child-protective services may intervene, as a lack of running water is grounds for social services to immediately take children out of parents’ care.
Even those without children remain reticent. Some feel tarred by a general notion of shame and culpability for not being able to meet such a bare necessity as water. Last week, a headline in one of the local newspapers, The Detroit News, described delinquent customers as “water scofflaws.”
This stigma is enhanced by the painting of blue lines in front of those houses that have just had their water turned off—lines painted by Homrich’s employees after a job is completed. Streets to the south of Roslyn Walker’s home showed blue line after blue line; among non-vacant houses, shut-off water was the norm.
Monica Lewis-Patrick, a community organizer who has been going door to door with fellow activists in order to raise awareness and distribute water, says she has come across old-age pensioners who—not knowing where to turn after their taps were closed off—have gone without running water for almost a year.” The Atlantic
One of the organizers of the most recent demonstration against the water cutoffs was the National Nurses United. This organization went on the record to decry these shut-offs.
“The union National Nurses United (NNU) was one of the national groups involved in organizing the rally. Nurses from the group told msnbc that the water shut-offs, which have thus far directly affected thousands of residents, present a direct threat to public health.
“Water is one of the most basic human needs that we all require,” said NNU official Bonnie Castillo. “And we know that it will result in a public health emergency. Not only for individual health, but community health, in terms of infectious diseases. Individuals can only live without water for a couple of days.” ‘ Crooks and Liars
Should the water be turned off for any resident, of any city or town in the United States because the resident does not have the financial resources to pay for water? I was taught by the good Benedictine Sisters that it was mandatory to take care of the poor. When American city governments start painting lines to delineate who is paying and who is not paying their water bills, have they gone too far?
How can we consider ourselves a great nation, when we treat all of the poor as scofflaws or lazy? Does Kevyn Orr, the Emergency Manager of the City of Detroit have no shame?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Byron: Water is not a commodity, it is an essential for life. Justice requires that that it cannot be turned over to the free market forces and sold for the highest price.
Water belongs to the commons, it was a right given by the Romans under Justinian Code, but due to the absolute cupidity you show with your delusional insistence on conflating socialism and fascism, the Roman concept of the commons is beyond you.
On a personal note, I hope your yard is having a good growing season.
is water a right?
to say that water only costs x amount per gal. may not take into account how much is charged for sewage or for garbage/trash removal that is often on the same bill.
i guess i’d like to say that i live in a country that provides a minimum a services so people or their children don’t have to drink from open sewers (or that we have open sewers or dung heaps) and that we have a minimum amount of healthcare so we don’t have people walking around with open sores or infectious diseases.
guess i’m funny like that.
addendum; saying “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he’s fed for life” only works if the bodies of water aren’t so polluted they either won’t support life or that eating what the fish is unhealthy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-sands-raise-levels-of-carcinogens-in-regional-waters/
John,
Actually, the Emergency manager just gave raises to his appointees.
I like that.
IF IT’S NOT FOR PROFIT,
IT’S FOR CORRUPTION — BY ELECTED OFFICIALS.
The choice is democracy or efficiency.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
De Tocqueville “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
The teachers will go on strike and the rest of the governmental workers will get “comparable pay” as the mayor gets a %20 raise and his city manager and assistant city manager and assistant assistant city manager get 19% raises and they all get “fact finding” junkets to Paris in the Spring. Then we have the Million Dollar Police Chief and Million Dollar Fire Chief. Ah, the dictatorship of the proletariat. There is nothing quite as rewarding.
Good news from Detroit! Water suspensions have been called off!
Elaine M. wrote: “The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department is a public utility. It’s a not-for-profit entity.”
Your point?
What constitutes access to potable water? An unlimited free water utility for all, regardless of if they can pay? (Because according to the percentage of people who DO pay their bills right after cutoff, the majority CAN pay). Or welfare programs that provide drinking water and showers?
The question is not whether water is a necessity of life. The question is which network of support programs should deliver it fairly.
Is Water a Right?
Yes, access to potable water is a human right, especially within a supposed
first world nation.
People without access to potable water could eventually lead to various waterborne disease outbreaks such as cholera or dysentery. It would be just like living in a third world nation.
This is a penny-wise and pound foolish scheme that could potentially cost
multiples more in both human and fiscal costs in order to contain a waterborne
disease outbreak rather than letting the spigots continue to flow with potable
water.
According to Detroit Water and Sewage Department’s website:
What is the cost of the water I use in my home?
Prices can vary. Typical cost is about $2 for 1,000 gallons. At this price,
you can get 5 gallons of tap water for about penny.
http://www.dwsd.org/pages_n/water101.html
So if someone has a bill of over $150 they are really using a lot of water.
Coddling and welfare are destructive. They destroy motivation, ambition, appetite, ardor and desire.
Mr. Ranger, “don’t feed the bears.”
“give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
“if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn.”
You should start a charity. They can be surprisingly lucrative. They exist in the free markets of the private sector. Your private charity would allow you to be the fool without stealing from the taxpayer who is not naive and knows the M.O. of the parasites who laugh at you behind your back.
Alternatively, in America, you are free to start a water company that functions with no revenue. That would be a great business model. You provide a service for free for your customers.
It is unconstitutional to take money from one man to give it to another.
It is irrefutably constitutional to open a private charity in the private sector to provide for people you perceive to be in need.
What you are really saying is that you have some extreme religious beliefs that compel you to look after, coddle and take care of every living thing in the entire universe, ney, infinity, “womb to the tomb.”
Is America a THEOCRACY.
Why are taxpayers compelled to pay for your NUTTY, ERRONEIOUS and FALSE religious beliefs.
“If you build it, they will come.”
IF YOU LEAVE THEM ALONE, THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF THEMSLERVES.
Old Chinese proverb:
“Whatever you have is enough.”
Paul S.:
Sorry, I won’t bite. What I stated is obvious to anyone with a grounding in natural and positive law theory, the notion of the commons and the concept of the social contract. You’ll have to do your own reading.
People need to understand the distinction between the right to water as a human right and the respective rights and responsibilities created by taxpayer funded public utility systems. No one is suggesting that public water supplies should be furnished without charge. The issue is how a municipality should deal with non-payment of monthly utility charges. Depending upon the type of utility, and the known needs of a particular customer, different enforcement methods are indicated. For example, turning off the electricity may be perfectly acceptable, unless the customer is attached to electrically powered medical equipment to live. And turning off the water may in some situations create personal or public health risks, As with most problems, a one-size-fits-all mentality is foolish.
Mike – have you ever practiced law were water rights were a major issue? The one size fits all is one of way of dealing with the problem. That way all are treated fairly. You might not like it, but it is fair.
The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department is a public utility. It’s a not-for-profit entity.
raff et alia, where would you all stand if you owned the water company? Unless you’ve never been an investor in any capacity, I might partially understand your arguments, not from a rational basis but giving you slack for your challenge. But really, what you all are condoning is nothing less than free passes for shoplifters at Walmart, while the rest of us are all foced to pay double. Don’t make it complicated!
Solar power. Get two solar panels or collectors. Also buy a regulator and a DC fuse box, LED lights with bulbs, DC wiring, DC appliances as exist. Propane tank for the stove and heating. Get off AC connections altogether or use AC sparingly. My human pal who is half blind lives on a boat and pays about $10 a month in electric, no water/sewer bill on a boat, and a marina fee that is quite cheap. If you live in De Troit, move south and live on a boat.
Prof Turley, with respect, you keep deleting the wrong posts. Your “policy” has actually alienated the best minds that used to flourish here. Speaking truth to power, especially person to person, is a vital form of our debate and your squelching of it has led to the steep deterioration of actual thought in this forum.
Today will be my final visit. Your approach is completely wrong-headed. Enjoy the threadjacking your policies have created. If you decide to change your policies, you have my email address.
The inevitable outbreak of diseases will of course remained confined to the poorer sections of Detroit; because diseases are well-known for their respect for social and economic boundaries. This is why you pay for social services and basic necessities; not because you want to help other people (although that’s a worthy goal), but to protect yourself.
Karen S.
Found it.
Help! Lost a post!
How typical of the decay and disorganization of the bureaucracy in Detroit if the utility companies are shutting off the water of non-payers, in order to collect past due revenue (as utilities do around the US), while letting water be wasted in vacant buildings.
It’s an oft-repeated criticism, that government gets bloated, ineffective, and inefficient. It becomes unanswerable to the taxpayers that a fill its coffers.
As someone who lives in a drought state, it horrifies me to see the wanton waste of a precious resource like water.
I always thought if you didn’t pay your utility bill, it would get shut off. There are Welfare programs that are intended to help provide basic necessities for food and drinking water. Most utility companies have programs for the poor, as well. But if you don’t pay, it gets shut off. I recall once, in my struggling years, I paid my electric and phone bills late, by a few weeks. I had already gotten a notice that if I didn’t pay I could get an interruption in services. So this isn’t new or unique to Detroit.
Honestly, why would anyone ever pay their water bill if it could never be collected or shut off? Why would anyone conserve, if they could just let the hose run all day, 24/7, and they would never have to pay or have it shut off?
It makes more sense to me to continue to provide social welfare programs that provide drinking water and showers, then to just make an entire utility free and unlimited. Because if it’s unfair to shut it off, then it’s unfair to limit the water, too. And it’s unfair to keep raising rates on the payers if you don’t even try to collect on non-payers, because that would include those who could pay but just don’t.
I live in a drought state, so I have an ingrained view of water as precious.
Paul C.:
I am certain that you understand the absurdity of your question.
Mike – it makes as much sense as your claim that the right to water is subsumed in the right to life.