Why do I have to pay for Flints bad water?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The same reason you pay for schools, roads, airports and the military.
Would you feel the same if a meteor hit flint and destroyed the water system?

...but not healthcare though, that's socialist, can't pay your medical bills then tough luck lol
Google bankrupcy and medical bills for US citizens, yeah Murica!

a reply to: TonyS

Here's a question for you. Why are you even in Michigan?

Ok good question...
I bought a 5 acre farm for 29000 dollars. I have good schools. I have my own well. The negroes that cause problems are only online,

I made 80k last year and love my life,

a reply to: 200Plus

In the end in may be refunded to the people that had the bills in Flint.

No No..it should not be refunded to the people of Flint... They havent paid their bill in years.

The money should be used to either restore the system to the point where it can deliver a safe water supply, or start moving people out of the area. As to where, well, we could open up some public land and offer it to them, some might bite, or well where ever they wished to move to. Some of the elderly might have kids who moved away long ago for those better jobs and would love to move closer to them, others might relish the thought of moving to warmer climates, and well, there are areas in this country that have far better and more opportunities as far as jobs go. That is of course, unless the taxpayers want to keep paying for these water bills...forever. But you can't expect the water board to have the additional money (after they spent so much money screwing the system up to begin with) if they have nothing coming in. I wouldn't expect reimbursements, but I certainly would expect every penny given to them to be used to correct the problem that they created...or get the people out of the town and well, have another ghost town I guess...

Just wanted to chime in and say I thought this payout was crap too when I heard about it.

They knowingly poisoned Flint's water supply and forced people to pay for it or have their kids taken away and their houses condemned. Instead of telling the people effected (for a full year) and making those responsible pay for it some how, they installed water coolers (with safe water) in city offices so they don't get poisoned. Now, after some citizens have discovered this crime, and it has become a publicly known cover up though out the whole world, they offer to pay for the poisoned water that people don't even want to use and do it with the state's money. On top of it all, the people with lead laced water have to depend on donated bottled water to get by.

Other than showing an open disregard for the citizen's health and keeping the money flowing into their political friend's pockets, how does any of this make any sense? How can anyone trust anything the government says or does at any level after this happened? Our country is totally insane and FUBAR.

Leave Michigan? Hell, leave the country, better yet leave the whole planet. I'd rather take my chances on the moon or Mars or even deep space as long as the government isn't involved.

a reply to: TonyS

ere's a question for you. Why are you even in Michigan? Talk about a state of fail. You got Flint. You got Detroit. You're going to be paying taxes to pay for failure for as long as you live in Michigan.

small parts of the state. I dont know where your from but Michigan is good.

Compare where you are from to any of us from Michigan

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

This I agree with.

As soon as I can ship out to colonize, I would. No leftist would want to bother with it until is was worth living there. They are adverse to hard work. It would take a while before the place is worthy of messing up and making "fair" by their standards which means me and mine would have some space to live our lives left alone for a change.

Why do you think so many left for the frontier?

a reply to: MOMof3

Text
Did you get a deal like this from snyder:

Snyder also signed into law a controversial law that limits the ability of the Treasury Department to hold corporate officers personally liable for the unpaid taxes of corporations. That law is expected to reduce state revenues by about $295 million over the next three years, of which about $165 million will impact the general fund, the state's main checking account.

Did I? No. I am a Union skilled tradesman... I got the right to work from your gov

a reply to: ketsuko

TextAs soon as I can ship out to colonize, I would. No leftist would want to bother with it until is was worth living there

who are the leftist? seriously???

a reply to: tinner07

Ha,ha. My husband was in the National laborers Union since 1972. Now retired. We had to leave Idaho when it went right to work in the 80's. Then we traveled from WA,OR following union jobs for next 25yrs.

First he became disabled at 57, but he had a good pension.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Free poison? Are you daft... cities pay to dump toxins into te water... excuse me citizens tax dollars as well as the bill itself.

not sure what in gods name you are trying to say?

a reply to: JourneymanWelder

flouride is considered a toxic chemical, a waste product for some manufacturing processes. if the cities didn't buy it to put into the water supply, these companies would have to pay for it to be disposed of.

Yeah. We're not the United States anymore. It's every man for himself. Dog eat dog. Let those kids drink poison water. Nothing like that could ever happen to you because you lead such a charmed life. Because you are too fabulous.

Take your tax money and go buy a cheeseburger with it. That's about what would go to Flint. I hope you freking choke on it.

a reply to: tinner07

Good for you! Stay there then in your sweet spot, but of course, if you're working for anything other than cash, you'll continue to pay for Flint and Detroit and Dearbornistan and whatever other failed jurisdictions exist in Michigan.

a reply to: tinner07

Welcome to the new 'Democratic Socialism'.

Enjoy.

a reply to: tinner07

People who think they can legislate everything, including a "fair" society, and only end up creating massive FUBARs like Flint all while spreading the wealth.

a reply to: ketsuko
ya know, I am sorry, but local gov'ts delivering clean safe water has been going on since before I was born for crying out loud! It has nothing to do with legislating a "fair society" and has everything to do with what what has been commonly expected by most americans for probably close to a century.

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: Bluntone22

Yes I pay taxes for schools, roads and military, and happy to do it. But if the city is selling toxic water, and the residents don't have to pay for it, Why should I?

Why should the flint water authority get a check for 30 million dollars to cover Flint water bills if the residents dont have to pay it?

They should be out the money or Flint residents pay it.

Who else is going to pay for it?

Revenue has to come in for that water somehow, otherwise there will be no money to fix it. If you're agreeing with the argument that the residents shouldn't be paying for toxic water, then I have to ask you who should? If the city pays, they get the money for it by raising taxes and the citizens still pay. Instead the state is paying, which means the residents of Michigan pay.

No one paying isn't an option because if no one pays it can't ever be fixed.

Considering the responsibility for the water system ultimately falls under the state it makes sense to me that the state pays, which means you pay.

originally posted by: tinner07
Thank you. That is what I was getting at. If company X sells a defective product and has to pay back the people that purchased it, the Govt doesnt cut them acheck for the bad product.

In this case though it's a public agency. It's not a private company that's paying out, and even if it were... lets say they were successfully sued. If the private company doesn't have the assets to make people whole again, then those people are completely screwed. It's one of the advantages to something like this being public, there's always going to be money to make people whole again. Ultimately it comes down to who is responsible. You can't collect taxes to pay the citizens from the city because that doesn't actually fix anything... you're taxing people to pay them back what they lost. In the end they're still out their money and their health.

Because of this, you need to go a step above the city in terms of hierarchy. The state is ultimately responsible for what goes on in that city, this is especially so since the governor had some say in what happened. As a result, the state is responsible here.

This is actually a great case as to why we should have a centralized rather than decentralized government. If the city were responsible for itself running purely off of a local government then no fix would be possible.

Also note, that if the chain of responsibility went all the way up to the federal government rather than stopping at the state level we could actually make no one pay (which is the best option here) by simply tacking it onto the debt.

hey, this is good... not only did flint residents have to pay for the toxic water, but in 2015, that toxic water was some of the most expensive water in the country!!

From CNN:

In early 2015, dirty water in Flint, Michigan, was being tested for lead, two lawsuits were challenging rate increases, and now a study finds residents were then paying the highest water bills of 500 communities surveyed nationwide, according to a nonprofit advocacy group.

Flint was deemed the "most expensive" water provider of the nation's 500 largest community water systems in January 2015, and its residents paid $864.32 yearly for 60,000 gallons of water, the Food & Water Watch group said.

That rate was almost three times national average of $316.20 for government utilities, the group said.

www.cnn.com...

three times the national average?? ya, I'd be throwing a fit also... even if the water was safe to use. it should be criminal to charge that much for water not fit for use!

a reply to: JourneymanWelder

It was a sarcasm... but this situation isn't a laughing matter.

The water that residents are paying for connected to homes should be suspended and instead have water delivery as a set fee for a certain amount based on family size including pet requirements. The family or person can add more or ask for less for a different fee schedule, but certain that all families receive it.

The city can then, turn off supply to all abandoned or connected lots or disconnect and ask for federal funds to offset to rebuild the crumbled infrastructure. The corporate entities could bid for goodwill advertising if the entity goes over the bid amount or flounders in anyway... the next lowest bidder replaces them.

Once, the infrastructure is rebuilt then supply could return to the usual metered supply.

Of course, a bill to draft such should be solid with community approval to prevent any fraud or corporate lobby... the bid amounts and open to public view... to where it all goes in account balances with a public forum to keep the accounting square, it would be a nice educational lesson in mathematics and community organization for local and state schools and colleges to involve those which are a part of its current and possible future population.