Detroit begins shutting off water for 150,000

[crazy canuck]

I'd say we should let everybody have free water, but then people would be using it all up on their lawns. 

We have free water with watering restrictions during dry months.  The watering restrictions are enforced by fine but mostly compliance is voluntary.  I can understand a system which requires payment for water if substantial investment in infrastructure is required to deliver the water but I think the better method is to pay for such things from general revenue because everyone needs water.  This isnt service that is subsidized by non users.

I also dont think rationing by way of a fee structure is a good policy either unless it is a progressive system which allows basic water consumption to be free and ramps up in cost from there to charge a large fee for luxury use - pools etc.


I think this will become a major issue as water becomes a more scarce resource.

[Neil]

If Detroit and the people who live there can't afford to provide running water to every home, perhaps they should look into some kind of neighbourhood well system.  People can walk to the taps to fetch water for the day, public bathing facilities could be built.  An opportunity to turn their mismanagement of their funds and lives into something that will bring the community together.

Yeah.  My church raises enough cash to dig several wells in Africa each year.  Maybe we could do a couple in Detroit

You couldn't actually use wells, as I'm reasonably sure that a century of unchecked industrial use has rendered it unwise to use untreated.  These would be more like public taps.  That would reduce consumption and eliminate the ability of people to water their lawns, both good things.

[Syt]

How's the Delta City project coming along?

[Neil]

I'd say we should let everybody have free water, but then people would be using it all up on their lawns. 

We have free water with watering restrictions during dry months.  The watering restrictions are enforced by fine but mostly compliance is voluntary.  I can understand a system which requires payment for water if substantial investment in infrastructure is required to deliver the water but I think the better method is to pay for such things from general revenue because everyone needs water.  This isnt service that is subsidized by non users.

I also dont think rationing by way of a fee structure is a good policy either unless it is a progressive system which allows basic water consumption to be free and ramps up in cost from there to charge a large fee for luxury use - pools etc.

I think this will become a major issue as water becomes a more scarce resource.

You don't have free water.  You're billed by the city for your usage, with the rate varying for the time of year.

It's not a bad idea to pay for water from general revenue in a place like Vancouver, where high property values gives the city a fair bit of money to play with.  I don't know if that approach would be practical in Detroit, where the city is bankrupt and most of the property in the city is essentially worthless.

[The Brain]

The inhabitants aren't property.

[Ed Anger]

The inhabitants aren't property.

I'd ask for a refund if they were.

[crazy canuck]

I'd say we should let everybody have free water, but then people would be using it all up on their lawns. 

We have free water with watering restrictions during dry months.  The watering restrictions are enforced by fine but mostly compliance is voluntary.  I can understand a system which requires payment for water if substantial investment in infrastructure is required to deliver the water but I think the better method is to pay for such things from general revenue because everyone needs water.  This isnt service that is subsidized by non users.

I also dont think rationing by way of a fee structure is a good policy either unless it is a progressive system which allows basic water consumption to be free and ramps up in cost from there to charge a large fee for luxury use - pools etc.

I think this will become a major issue as water becomes a more scarce resource.

You don't have free water.  You're billed by the city for your usage, with the rate varying for the time of year.

It's not a bad idea to pay for water from general revenue in a place like Vancouver, where high property values gives the city a fair bit of money to play with.  I don't know if that approach would be practical in Detroit, where the city is bankrupt and most of the property in the city is essentially worthless.

Correct.  What I meant is we do not have a user pay metered system.  The costs is built into the general taxation system of our municiple taxes.  For sake of transparancy the water cost is listed as a specific amount which makes up part of the amount payable to the municaplity.  We dont make separate payments for water as seems to be the case for Detroit.

I agree that the payment of basic utilities cant be expected to come from a non existant municiple tax base.  But that is apparently what happens in the US.  Here the Provincial and Federal governments assist with funding of water delivery and waste water treatement infrastructure.  A place like Vancouver is largely self funded as you point out.  But there are a number of smaller communities that wouldnt be able to afford such infrastructure development on their own.

[Neil]

Correct.  What I meant is we do not have a user pay metered system.  The costs is built into the general taxation system of our municiple taxes.  For sake of transparancy the water cost is listed as a specific amount which makes up part of the amount payable to the municaplity.  We dont make separate payments for water as seems to be the case for Detroit.

Yeah, that's a pretty sensible way to handle it, by just tacking it to the bill the property owner gets for his taxes.  When I lived in Grande Prairie, I used to rent a home (before I got to enjoy the benefits of tower living), and we got a monthly water bill from the city, just like power or gas, so I've seen it done the other way too.  I suppose it would be easier for the owners of rental properties, so that they don't have to worry about adjusting their tenants' rent to reflect water usage.  But every multi-unit building I've ever lived in has had the water included in the rent anyways.  Assuming that there is a technical reason for this (difficulty or expense of metering every unit seperately?), then it's a fairly small portion of the rental market that gets any benefit at all from an end-user pay system, as opposed to your taxation system.  The only other benefit is that it allows you to shut people's water off if they don't pay, which would work better for Detroit than the tax-lien option that Vancouver-type systems would no doubt use.

I agree that the payment of basic utilities cant be expected to come from a non existant municiple tax base.  But that is apparently what happens in the US.  Here the Provincial and Federal governments assist with funding of water delivery and waste water treatement infrastructure.  A place like Vancouver is largely self funded as you point out.  But there are a number of smaller communities that wouldnt be able to afford such infrastructure development on their own.

I would suspect that in the US you see counties getting involved in water treatment and the like for smaller centres.  Detroit's transition from a prosperous city to poverty means that it can't fulfill the responsibilities expected of it, but because of the times we live in now, it's politically difficult for higher government to bail them out.  A lot of people have the idea that if only they used their resources more effectively, they could take care of themselves.  That the entire basis of their economy has disappeared is a difficult idea to deal with.

[Admiral Yi]

Good point Neil.  Is it kinder to evict people than cut off their water?

[Neil]

Good point Neil.  Is it kinder to evict people than cut off their water?

I would think they're about the same.  Barring some as-yet unbuilt infrastructure, a roof and water are equally important to surviving this modern world.

[Admiral Yi]

Disgree.  With water cut off you still have a roof.  With  eviction you have  neither.

[Neil]

Disgree.  With water cut off you still have a roof.  With  eviction you have  neither.

But either way you won't really be able to function properly.  'Can you function in a first-world manner?' is a pass/fail question, and a double fault is still just a fail.

Besides, if you don't bathe for a few weeks, you'll lose your job and then you'll get evicted anyways.  Although assuming that someone is employed when we're talking about Detroit is probably a bit of an overreach on our part.

[derspiess]

You couldn't actually use wells, as I'm reasonably sure that a century of unchecked industrial use has rendered it unwise to use untreated. 

[Savonarola]

Water is one of the most contentious issues in Metro Detroit region.  The water department is owned by the city of Detroit and it serves both the city and surrounding suburbs.  Until the early 2000s Michigan had residency requirements; people who worked for the water department had to live in the city of Detroit.  Consequently the water department became a notorious example of featherbedding.  This has lingered even though the residency requirement is no longer in effect.  In 2012 an independent audit concluded that the water department could operate just as efficiently with only 19% of its staff.

The water department was also used for public corruption; Kwame Kilpatrick and friends profited nearly a million dollars in graft due to land deals the water department was involved in.

Each individual city in the Detroit Metro region is responsible for collecting fees for water.  Detroit is hilariously incompetent at collecting revenues.  Half the property owners in the city don't pay their property taxes; and there has been no consequences for them not having done so.  Likewise half the residents of the city don't pay their water bill and, until this year, there have been no consequences for that either.  This system doesn't work.  There has to be consequences to not paying bills; otherwise the city will be back in bankruptcy in no time at all.

[Savonarola]

This is what happens when Democrats run a place without opposition.

Chicago works (more or less) fine despite having Democrats run without opposition.

The politicians who run Detroit are more akin to heads of rival families in a Renaissance city state; (or the head of a crime family) rather than party politicians.  Kwame Kilpatrick's mother was a congresswoman, father was a county executive and aunt was a state representative.  His rival, Shrek Cockrel Jr.'s father and step mother were city council members.