3 ms·

There are plenty of municipal entities who can't afford to meet various minimum legal requirements. Furthermore, it's not always clear what severity is attached

There are plenty of municipal entities who can't afford to meet various minimum legal requirements. Furthermore, it's not always clear what severity is attached to various compliance requirements. Bankruptcy can cancel debt, but it can't create new funding. If the money isn't there, it isn't there.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Flint switched water supplies then failed to properly treat the new one. Severe budget constraints would have had them staying with the already not-poisonous supply.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  In general, it would have... Except in this case, a larger municipality more or less bought out Flint's stake in the old water supply. Flint didn't have the money to not get the old supply turned away from them.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    I just love the way markets self regulate.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    Appreciate the additional info.
  - 8note 5y ago
    That still sounds like somebody went on a liberty binge. Why are towns competing for clean water sources by how much they can pay to a provider?
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Because in the United States, in absence of law forcing a different arrangement, we can assume that this problem is solved by a capitalist marketplace. I don't know enough about Michigan state law to comment in detail on this topic. I can only extrapolate from the local situation where I live, where our water is provided by a corporation, that corporation works to minimize its costs to maximize its revenue (within a safety framework established by the state), but the corporation is private. It maintains its own reservoirs, and I don't doubt a price point could be found where, if they were willing to pay, it would sell the water from the city down into neighboring towns, possibly to a level that decreases the odds that can satisfy demand in-city during a drought. This is the scenario I would anticipate unless there is law to the contrary.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        Old supplier was City of Detroit (Lake Huron/Detroit River water), new supplier was themselves (Flint River water), eventual supplier was regional municipal corporation (Karegnondi Water Authority, Lake Huron water). Detroit cut off the water, seemingly out of pettiness, with a year of warning. They did that after offering lower rate though.
        WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        Thank you for adding that.
dane-pgp 5y ago
> There are plenty of municipal entities who can't afford to meet various minimum legal requirements. Many people are saying this. I'd be interested to know how cities get into situations where they stop complying with legal requirements, and what consequences they face, if you have some examples. > Furthermore, it's not always clear what severity is attached to various compliance requirements. I don't think a city should be deciding which laws to follow based on how big the punishment is for not complying. If it is ever economically rational to pay a fine rather than obey the law, then the fine needs to be higher, and if it is ever unclear what the punishment is for breaking a law, then the law needs to be made clearer. Again, if you have an example of a city mistakenly believing that the penalty for non-compliance with a legal requirement was smaller than it actually was, I'd be interested to know. > Bankruptcy can cancel debt, but it can't create new funding. You're absolutely right. I think I was assuming that bankruptcy would automatically trigger a process of the state taking control of the city, which is sort of what happens in Michigan[0]. In some cases, a city can also be dissolved.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_emergency_in_Michigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_emergency_in_Michiga... [1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/what-happens-if-your-city-goes-broke-files-bankruptcy https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/what-happens-if-your-ci...

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

Flint switched water supplies then failed to properly treat the new one. Severe budget constraints would have had them staying with the already not-poisonous supply.

shadowgovt 5y ago
In general, it would have... Except in this case, a larger municipality more or less bought out Flint's stake in the old water supply. Flint didn't have the money to not get the old supply turned away from them.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  I just love the way markets self regulate.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Appreciate the additional info.
- 8note 5y ago
  That still sounds like somebody went on a liberty binge. Why are towns competing for clean water sources by how much they can pay to a provider?
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Because in the United States, in absence of law forcing a different arrangement, we can assume that this problem is solved by a capitalist marketplace. I don't know enough about Michigan state law to comment in detail on this topic. I can only extrapolate from the local situation where I live, where our water is provided by a corporation, that corporation works to minimize its costs to maximize its revenue (within a safety framework established by the state), but the corporation is private. It maintains its own reservoirs, and I don't doubt a price point could be found where, if they were willing to pay, it would sell the water from the city down into neighboring towns, possibly to a level that decreases the odds that can satisfy demand in-city during a drought. This is the scenario I would anticipate unless there is law to the contrary.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Old supplier was City of Detroit (Lake Huron/Detroit River water), new supplier was themselves (Flint River water), eventual supplier was regional municipal corporation (Karegnondi Water Authority, Lake Huron water). Detroit cut off the water, seemingly out of pettiness, with a year of warning. They did that after offering lower rate though.
      - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        Thank you for adding that.

dane-pgp 5y ago

> There are plenty of municipal entities who can't afford to meet various minimum legal requirements. Many people are saying this. I'd be interested to know how cities get into situations where they stop complying with legal requirements, and what consequences they face, if you have some examples. > Furthermore, it's not always clear what severity is attached to various compliance requirements. I don't think a city should be deciding which laws to follow based on how big the punishment is for not complying. If it is ever economically rational to pay a fine rather than obey the law, then the fine needs to be higher, and if it is ever unclear what the punishment is for breaking a law, then the law needs to be made clearer. Again, if you have an example of a city mistakenly believing that the penalty for non-compliance with a legal requirement was smaller than it actually was, I'd be interested to know. > Bankruptcy can cancel debt, but it can't create new funding. You're absolutely right. I think I was assuming that bankruptcy would automatically trigger a process of the state taking control of the city, which is sort of what happens in Michigan[0]. In some cases, a city can also be dissolved.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_emergency_in_Michigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_emergency_in_Michiga... [1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/what-happens-if-your-city-goes-broke-files-bankruptcy https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/what-happens-if-your-ci...