4 ms·

Detroit is an odd case because it's largely a case of exploitation by people who simply decided they didn't have to pay their water bill anymore- after all- who

Detroit is an odd case because it's largely a case of exploitation by people who simply decided they didn't have to pay their water bill anymore- after all- who would dare to deprive someone of water?! That these people got bit in the ass on their delinquency doesn't really bother me. Here's a quote from the official report: "In May, for example, DWSD sent out 46,000 shut off notices. Of those, only 4,531 customers less than 10 percent of the total had their water service shut off for any period of time. Within 24 hours, 60 percent of the affected customers paid their accounts in full and had their service immediately restored. Forty percent of the remaining customers had their service restored within 48 hours." The people who honestly can't afford it should have mechanisms to waive their water bill costs but the above quote clearly shows that's a tiny fraction of the people who actually got shutoff notices. The trick of course is that many of these small minority needs to be proactively contacted by the city government since they're likely mentally ill/severely disabled and possibly lack the ability to take the initiative on their own.

JoachimS 12y ago
The thing is that all those arguments are fairly moot. The United States has signed the declaration of human rights and thus it cannot withhold water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...
- icambron 12y ago
  Leaving aside the UDHR's enforceability in the US, the document doesn't actually include the word "water" or "drink". What it does include is this: > (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. IANAL and don't know much about international law, but I'm guessing that's what people mean when they talk about the right to water, since certainly water is necessary for health and on par with food and shelter, and it's reasonable to read water into that article. But it's hard to imagine that means the government can't use shutting off water as an enforcement mechanism for water prices. That would be largely the same as saying that right is actually not to have water, but to not pay for it. If you take that to mean "you don't have to pay for water", you're also saying you don't have to pay for clothes or housing. If I don't pay my rent, can the government enforce my eviction? Or does my right to housing supersede that? What if I have a huge house and piles of money? I think it makes more sense to say that you have a right to access water on reasonable and affordable terms. If you can afford water but opt not to, you're not being deprived of water in the relevant sense.

JoachimS 12y ago

The thing is that all those arguments are fairly moot. The United States has signed the declaration of human rights and thus it cannot withhold water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...

icambron 12y ago
Leaving aside the UDHR's enforceability in the US, the document doesn't actually include the word "water" or "drink". What it does include is this: > (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. IANAL and don't know much about international law, but I'm guessing that's what people mean when they talk about the right to water, since certainly water is necessary for health and on par with food and shelter, and it's reasonable to read water into that article. But it's hard to imagine that means the government can't use shutting off water as an enforcement mechanism for water prices. That would be largely the same as saying that right is actually not to have water, but to not pay for it. If you take that to mean "you don't have to pay for water", you're also saying you don't have to pay for clothes or housing. If I don't pay my rent, can the government enforce my eviction? Or does my right to housing supersede that? What if I have a huge house and piles of money? I think it makes more sense to say that you have a right to access water on reasonable and affordable terms. If you can afford water but opt not to, you're not being deprived of water in the relevant sense.