Good thing this was approved by the previous administration. The next Flint will most likely receive a tank to protect itself from rioters, given the EPA cuts and further bloated defense budget
EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
21–30 of 198 posts
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#22"The state of Michigan is contributing matching funds of $20 million for a total award of $120 million." So, not really matching?
Ya, more importantly this is strange. This is more of a city/state issue than a federal issue.
is this statement implying that you don't believe in federal disaster relief for local emergencies?
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#23Flint is one of thousands of places in the US with poisonous levels of lead. I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-...
> I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it. That's a pretty bold assumption you're making in that statement.
fwiw I don't really see anything inflammatory in the parent's statement, or any indication that they feel the current administration is any more/less equipped than previous ones to deal with the water crisis.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#24Flint is one of thousands of places in the US with poisonous levels of lead. I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-...
> I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it. That's a pretty bold assumption you're making in that statement.
How is it an assumption? The administration just gave $100M to help repair the pipes in Flint. It's in the title of the article.
Also in the article is this quote from the administrator of the EPA:
> especially focus on helping Michigan improve Flint’s water infrastructure as part of its larger goal of improving America’s water infrastructure.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can also be capped to a maximum amount. You can see this often on NPR listener donation rallies, when companies match funds up to something like $5k for the duration of a show. If more than $5k is reached, the company still donates only $5k.
I think OP's intuition is understandable. Search Results match·ing ˈmaCHiNG/ adjective adjective: matching 1. corresponding in pattern, color, or design; complementary. "a blue jacket and matching skirt" **2. equal in number or amount; equivalent. "the college will provide matching funds to complete the project"**
It does not need to be 1:1 to be corresponding in pattern.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Framing it that way misses an important part of the story. It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. Part of the reason that happened is that Flint had depopulated and was basically a failed city. It's not acceptable that it happened, but it didn't happen just because Flint was trying to skimp on infrastructure 40,50,60 years ago.
You're acting like this was forced on them from budget cuts. The city manager was warned about exactly this happening and still went ahead and did it because it was the city manager is appointed by their corrupt Republican governor [1]. The city manager should not have been able to make those decisions without a much more thorough vetting process. 1: http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/02/flint_wate...
You must have misunderstood my comment.
What do you think It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. means?
Or in a sibling thread where I say it shouldn't have been a financial decision?
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#27"The state of Michigan is contributing matching funds of $20 million for a total award of $120 million." So, not really matching?
Ya, more importantly this is strange. This is more of a city/state issue than a federal issue.
I think I'm gonna to go ahead and assume what you are saying is 'why isn't the state and:or city already handling this' just more poorly worded.
I'm going with that because I want to take a moment to highlight this is one of the things that is very wrong with American infrastructure. You see most states aren't like the federal government in that they are often competing with other states for things like industry, job creation, and this in turn has a very high curbing away from infrastructure projects from say a town like Flint which isn't really a thriving economic center like to once was. The state itself is going to choose rightly or wrongly to dump money into places like Ann Arbor, which is much more of a thriving place in Michigan. Cities also are competing more wholly in this regard and it's unlikely Flint could even come close to paying for this being caught up with all the other services that city has to run. This is before we factor for political favors, corruption, ill fated projects and the like.
For all but the biggest metros/cities and most populous and still thriving states like California, New York, or San Fran, LA, NYC, hell your thriving and well run Minneapolis-St.Paul and the like. You have a great inability for cities and even entire States that without influx of Federal funds would be unable to do even minimal investment in infrastructure.
It's a huge problem. One of the reasons that calls for a Federal Infrastructure Investment Act is so broadly supported in both sides (though what infrastructure that would be built isn't and it is always about Roads it's seems before anything else)
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it. That's a pretty bold assumption you're making in that statement.
How is it an assumption? The administration just gave $100M to help repair the pipes in Flint. It's in the title of the article. Also in the article is this quote from the administrator of the EPA: > especially focus on helping Michigan improve Flint’s water infrastructure as part of its larger goal of improving America’s water infrastructure.
The Obama administration + Congress did that. Trump had nothing to do with it.
From the 3rd paragraph of the article:
> The funding was approved by Congress in December and signed into law by President Barack Obama, but the EPA had to review and approve a formal request from state officials detailing how the city intends to use the grant money.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're acting like this was forced on them from budget cuts. The city manager was warned about exactly this happening and still went ahead and did it because it was the city manager is appointed by their corrupt Republican governor [1]. The city manager should not have been able to make those decisions without a much more thorough vetting process. 1: http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/02/flint_wate...
The city manager was only appointed after Flint became effectively a failed city, and the state took over management. In the US, cities manage their own municipal services including water supplies. The state only intervenes when the city runs out of money to provide basic services to their inhabitants -- and this happens very rarely. If Flint had had a functioning government, the state appointees would have had nothi…
Relocated like cattle to another pasture? I can't for the life of me understand this philosophy that financial economy under-girds life.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#30"The state of Michigan is contributing matching funds of $20 million for a total award of $120 million." So, not really matching?
"matching funds" can (and very often do) have matching ratios other than 1:1; it's the general term for a required proportional cobtribution.
Then I would have clarified that sentence, by saying matching funds UP TO $20 million. If my employer says they are matching my 401k contribution, I'd expect that is 1:1, not a hidden, oh we really only meant 20%. I'm just being pedantic.