As I suspected this was signed by President Obama.
EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
31–40 of 198 posts
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#32And how much did the city originally "save"? This affair should be poster child for being pennywise and pound foolish with our infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/465545378/... > That option was projected to save the region $200 million over 25 years, according to City Council meeting minutes. Flint has already taken $250mil in state funding, and it will be taking another $120mil in fed+state funds now. So I guess that this whole thing will break even in 45 years?
That $200 million is only vaguely related to the situation, there isn't any technical reason that the long term plan to switch to the Karegnondi Water Authority supply required the short term switch to the river water.
It's not even clear it represented real savings. This article is written sort of after the fact, but it sounds reasonable to me.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/michigan/flint-water-c...
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Finance, in this case, is a way of framing sustainability. If your city puts out less than what it brings in, it's not sustainable.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#34Flint 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-...
This expenditure was approved by the previous administration. As for the current administration... I'm sure the free market will figure out ways to improve water quality. High taxes are the only thing preventing that from happening.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#35Earlier 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.
It's an assumption that the current administration will deal with it at all. Consider its denialist position on climate change and the evisceration of the EPA budget, it's entirely reasonable to conclude lead elsewhere isn't a concern worth doing anything about. Besides, don't plutocrats drink only bottled water?
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
You'd be assuming poorly, then. The most common 401k(k) matching is actually 50%.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So you're proposing we throw good money after bad?
The city failed. It it's not financially feasible to fix it so it is self-sustainable at a level of investment that can be paid back in a reasonable amount of time, relocating is a perfectly acceptable proposal.
People have every right to stay there if they can afford to do so, but if they are going to ask others for financial help bailing them out, it's not in the least bit unreasonable for those spending the money to do so to dictate how that money is spent. If the city has no hope of recovery, then saying the money can only be used for relocation is perfectly acceptable. What's not acceptable is expecting others to support your unsustainable city in perpetuity.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#38Earlier 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.
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.
It was a joke
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#39Earlier 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.
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.
The parent comment’s implication is that the administration does not have any plan for dealing with the problem. It was phrased in a sarcastic/jokey way, which doesn’t always read clearly on the internet.
Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
They skimped (ie entirely did not use) on corrosion inhibitors when the water supply was switched. I believe those are the "savings" OP was referring to. "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. " http://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-the-flint-wate... "Replacement of Flint’s lead service lines, which is the only permanent solution to address its lead vulnerability, is…
Yeah, that it was a financial decision is an institutional and regulatory failure. It shouldn't have even been on the table to switch without properly treating the different source water.
Everything is a financial decision at the end of the day. You can't just wish away the laws of economics.
Let's say that regulations dictated that they had to spend this money and they didn't have it. Add enough of such regulations and a shrinking tax base and eventually you have an insolvent city. What do you propose we do then?
Near as I can tell, it's reasonable to have such regulations so people don't get hurt by people making decisions with consequences they don't understand, but eventually this will lead to insolvency and we need to have a plan to shut down cities that become insolvent and support relocation efforts when that happens.