Water Works
I’m taking brief respite from blogging about Indiana Black Expo and yesterday’s arrest of Shamus Patton. I’m working on a longer, more analytical piece which I will throw up tomorrow because I need a couple more pieces to fall into place. In the interim I would like to pontificate on the proposed transfer of the city’s water and waste water facilities to Citizens Gas.
The City-County Council’s Utility Committee voted 7-4 to move the deal to the full Council. All six Republicans voted for the deal, as did Paul Bateman. I asked Bateman why he supported the deal, and he told me keeping sewage from backing up into his constituents sinks ad fixing their crumbling roads were more important than playing politics.
Democrats on the Committee did offer up a some amendments, two of which surprised me because of the legal issues they would create. One of which would have allowed the city to take back the water company if Citizens failed to provide “adequate service”. When I heard that the lawyer alarm in my head went nuts, because the amendment did not define what “adequate service” was and anybody and everybody who didn’t like what was going on could haul Citizens into court.
The second amendment offered was a little more complicated, but still sent off a couple of legal flares as well. Democrats offered an amendment that would require that 30% of Citizens contracts go to women and minority owned businesses, a goal similar to that of the current water companies. Right now Citizens has adopted the city’s participation goals which are about 18%. The legal issue here would be that Citizens is defined as a public utility and in order to increase those goals it must be based on a disparate impact study geared toward addressing past discrimination. The last such study was done in the early 2000s. To me if Democrats wanted to include language increasing minority participation they would have asked for a second study be done and based on those results had new goals put into place into the agreement.
I don’t know who was giving them legal advice, but someone should get their money back. I think it was the same people who told the Baptist Ministers Alliance that it would be a good idea to bring Al Sharpton to town.
Oh well, now that the measure has gotten out of committee, it goes to the full Council. By my last count, the measure will pass with at least 18 votes, 15 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Libertarian Ed Coleman is still undecided and the remaining 10 Democrats are all “no” votes.
July 20th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
OK, Abdul, follow this bouncing ball:
Using Bateman's logic, I think I'll get an oil change today, because I get a $10 gift card, and I need some laundry soap.
I favor selling the water utility, and Citizens is probably a good entity to buy it.
The rest of the del is pure electioneering puffery. But that's what passes for leadership in this city, so we have to swallow it.
There. A lot less than 600 words.
July 20th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Didn't I read where they spent/will spend well in excess of a millon dollars on consultant and legal fees to effect the transfer? Sounds like they aren't getting their money's worth.
July 20th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
This deal is a train wreck waiting to happen. You don't offer water resource, which is vital to human life, up as collateral to banksters. That's like offering up your own kid as collateral to a bank. You don't go down that path.
July 20th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
With due respect for service to country and city- we're supposed to trust Mayor “Haven't Seen A Business or Construction Project We Can't Afford Yet” Ballard to exercise the same fiscal discretion demonstrated on the Pacers, Wishard, and a proposed new sports complex? Our mayor won't weigh-in for the Brandon Johnson/IMPD episode, but can't get to the microphone quick enough when business & the NFL don't need bad news aired about Downtown from the Indiana Black Expo shootings.
I'm the first guy to guffaw and bellyache when business is accused of being too corrupt, and then the vast improvement is government takeover- as in health “reform”. But, the common thread is that whether business or government, the taxpaying citizenry has NO trust. None. Zilch. We howl and beg for transparency and simplicity, but all we get are the same old shell games.
If you want to run health care, or sidewalk repair, or sports facility management, or a batch of public schools, you can continue to evade, hide, and obfuscate reality- or you can come clean. “Coming clean” does not mean transfer a water company and at the same time fix sidewalks and tear down houses. However worthwhile it MIGHT be, it doesn’t fly in the present societal and political climate.
Earth to voter: We're still at 10% unemployment, millions and billions behind in tax revenue for ungodly spending, trillions in obligations yet ahead, all with business scared %&*!less and more taxes returning next year. Do you feel particularly trusting of government right now? Maybe I missed something. Is there any way citizens, in their present mood of seething frustration and distrust, want anything to do with murkiness, evasion, and lack of candor from their elected representatives? We’ve sent a hidden encrypted message to our public servants along the lines of, “I may say I want you to be clear and transparent in spending our tax dollars, but I what I REALLY want you to do is muddle things up so we not quite sure what, where, and how money’s being spent.”? That’s the secret decoder ring message we've really sent? That's all they seem to be receiving.
If we need to transfer a water company- transfer it. Period. You want more money for more stuff? That's another topic to weigh separately. I may not presently trust government collectively and the water deal specifically, but I'm a long way from being the Lone Ranger on that sentiment.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Re: John Howard, the fees associated with the transfer are 8-9 million dollars.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
John, The Indy Star reported that the city spent $9.3 million on consultant studies and the PR to ram this deal down our throats.
Instinctively The People do know that offering up our kids' water as collateral to the bond banks is not prudent. They used to offer up our houses as collateral to the bond banks until one day the people collectively awakened to property tax bills they no longer could afford.
At all cost we must be able to afford water. And if the city needs a PR firm to package, spin, and sell this deal, it must not be the best thing for us.
July 20th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Can someone email me and tell me who the three democrats are?
July 20th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Paul Bateman, Jackie Nytes, Mary Moriarty Adams were still in the “yes” column last time I checked.
July 20th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
For a $2 billion transaction.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Thanks Abdul.