It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flint puts 8,000 people on notice for tax liens for unpaid water bills

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   



FLINT, Mich. — Thousands of people in Flint are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure if they don't pay up on their water bills. After recently putting out shut-off notices the city is now back to threatening tax liens on people's homes. "I got scared, for probably the first time since this all started this actually scared me," said Melissa Mays, who is a mother and water activist who lives in Flint. Mays received the notice in the mail Friday stating that she must pay nearly $900 by May 19 to avoid a lien being placed on her property. The Mays Family is not alone. More than 8,000 people are also on the same notice. What gets them on this list is not paying a water bill for six months or more.


I'm sorry but, If I was still having problems with my water I wouldn't foot the bill either.


City leaders say they are in a bind and they need the cash.


Need the cash you say? Take a pay cut for crying out loud!


After May 19, for those who do not pay, a lengthy process begins which could end in foreclosure.

This is such a messed up situation, I feel bad for all those people having to go through this.

"We have to have revenue coming in, so we can't give people revenue, I mean excuse me, give people water at the tap and not get revenue coming in to pay those bills," said Al Mooney, City of Flint Treasury Department.


What says ATS?

Source




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: slapjacks

I pay alot for cable, so if it goes out for a few days I call and make them take those days off as I didn't consume the service.

If I paid for water but the water was comprised, I wouldn't pay.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Good Lord! After taking a quick glance at your link, it appears this is actually true. What a goddamn outrage!



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
What say me?

Our BLEEEEEEEPPPPP Governor needs to be strung up by his BLLEEEEEP.

All he does is play the blame game, instead of getting this fixed.

I sure wouldn't pay this bill, and boy is Michigan going to take a hit when the lawsuits start getting decided.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
If these dudes rioted I wouldn't be surprised and would have to back their riot for once.a reply to: slapjacks



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I feel for those people, their local government is run by idiots.

A couple of thoughts:

- I thought there was a big chunk of money that Trump has in the budget for fixing their water, so that should offset what the people need to pay to fix this since the city is getting outside help.

- Water is used for landscapes, showers/baths, washing cars, etc. all of which could have still been done with the contaminated water. Only a small percent is used for drinking. So there was not ever a real good reason to stop paying the bills outright, but their was certainly a strong emotional reason too. I might have subtracted some percent of the monthly bill as a protest (to compensate for any bottled water I had to buy) and paid the rest. The city should not expect full payment for undrinkable water.

- I hope the Flint residents understand the cities failure enough to vote out all of their leaders and elect some new competent ones.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I would pay the bill but then sue the city immediately afterward.

A bill is a bill and they dont just go away. These people have the bill being sent to them because they are still using water. If they weren't using the water then they wouldn't get billed. That tells me right there that even though the water is bad these people still deem it good enough to use in their household. Just not good enough to pay for.

SO if they are using the water it needs to be paid for. I would just use the water bill in court to further my agenda.
edit on 4-5-2017 by PraetorianAZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr
Um..
You do realize that doctors are telling people NOT to bath children in this water, right?
No, the water should not be used at all.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: slapjacks

This is shameful and unconscionable. I'm glad someone's on their side:


Congressman Dan Kildee issued a statement Wednesday after reports that some Flint residents recently received notices of potential tax liens being placed on their properties for unpaid water bills during the water crisis: “Flint families should not have to pay for water that they still cannot drink, and they certainly should not lose their homes over this ongoing water crisis that was caused by the callous decisions of state government. It is unfortunate that Governor Snyder ended water credits for Flint families. I opposed this decision because Flint families deserve support from the state until there is confidence in the water system again.”


ETA: This really burns me up. Foreclosure should not even be an option -- especially for these paltry amounts!!! Discontinuing service is one thing, even getting a court ordered lien on the home to be paid upon sale of the home. Property rights alone should preclude any possibility of taking a home... but our rights were sold out for privileges long ago. It's all about the balance of power and power vs force. When the government has all the power and they can force anything they want, then the people have no rights and we're all screwed.
edit on 4-5-2017 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2017 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: bluesjr
Um..
You do realize that doctors are telling people NOT to bath children in this water, right?
No, the water should not be used at all.


No, I did not know that. Thanks for correcting me.

I think my point is still valid that the water was used for other things which would not justify a 100% non-payment. But I can't really fault anyone for the desire to fight back against this injustice. In general though, when the government 'needs' money they are not going to just let 6 months of complete non-payment go without repercussions. They will find a way to legally strong-arm these folks. I don't like it anymore than those affected do, I just think that is the reality.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr

Sorry, didn't mean to come off....Grouchy, LOL

Also, another not well known fact. When some of the pipes (few) were finally replaced, people were told to have their water running, in all their faucets, for long periods of time, to supposedly clean out the pipes.
Turned out that even those were still testing positive for high lead levels.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I would pay the bill but then sue the city immediately afterward.

A bill is a bill and they dont just go away. These people have the bill being sent to them because they are still using water. If they weren't using the water then they wouldn't get billed. That tells me right there that even though the water is bad these people still deem it good enough to use in their household. Just not good enough to pay for.

SO if they are using the water it needs to be paid for. I would just use the water bill in court to further my agenda.


Very good point, assuming they are metered and pay per use. If they aren't metered and get a fixed rate bill, then they might not have been using any. I'm too far removed from this to know which case it is.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: slapjacks


All I can say is



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Agreed, they are supposed to be paying for potable water.

The water was not in spec, I imagine the system is going to have a reset. By that I mean some sort of bargain to start the process of cleaning up the financial mess that was caused by the local govt ignoring the chemistry of the putting water through a pipe process.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr




- I thought there was a big chunk of money that Trump has in the budget for fixing their water, so that should offset what the people need to pay to fix this since the city is getting outside help.


I thought I heard about that as well.

Well, well, well.

Trump gives 100 million to Flint to fix water

I wonder where all that money went if


City leaders say they are in a bind and they need the cash.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: slapjacks

If I were Trump I would have a 24 hour camera "guy" going around to work sites that are repairing the piping that doesn't need to be repaird.

The problem, if I understand it correctly, is that the river water did not have the correct chemical makeup and did not build up the "slime" on the inside of the pipe. This allowed leaching from old lead soldier joints and lead pipes. This fact somehow got ignored and no one added the proper water treatment to make sure the "slime" did indeed build up.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluesjr

- Water is used for landscapes...


Lead contamination of soil is also a big problem:

It is estimated that between 5.9 and 11.7 million children nationwide potentially are exposed to lead in soil or dust. Low-level, chronic exposure to lead in contaminated residential soil can cause several developmental and behavioral problems in children.

Source


- I hope the Flint residents understand the cities failure enough to vote out all of their leaders and elect some new competent ones.


At the time this happened, the state had appointed an emergency manager and pretty much taken over the functions of city government. The people did not and do not have a choice. The city is still under a "Receivership Transition Advisory Board," and the state still maintains their iron grip over the city.

This is all on the governor.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: slapjacks

Wow, hasn't this city gone through enough. 3 years without clean water and now the Feds want them to pay for it ? Can't say I'm too surprised. The only thing I'm a bit confused about is the city has a pop of roughly around 100,000. I guess that mean the rest of the city payed the bill they received.

Hopefully the residents of flint can get some clean water soon.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
You should move this thread to ATS, not lingering down here on BTS.

This is a frickin outrage. Yeah, where did King Donald's money go?

Pay a bill for non-potable water? Sure! Come read my water meter! Compare the last reading and charge me what I owe!!




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF




You should move this thread to ATS, not lingering down here on BTS.


Agreed.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join