Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Having worked in this area, I can say that "incompetence and corruption" is an intellectually lazy explanation for the problems facing municipal water supplies. The real problem is that water is a municipal utility and municipal rate setting boards set water rates far too low. There is simply not enough money to rip out all the old lead pipe and replace it: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/clean-water-at-any-rate_b_504.... It's politically untenable for water boards to raise rates, especially since water bills are not progressive (seniors and the poor pay the same rate as rich people).

View on HN

So fund the system with taxes. Issue bonds for necessary infrastructure upgrades. If raising money is politically impossible in any form, shut the system down. If the responsible people are just throwing their hands up and letting the systems collapse and poison people along the way, that's at best incompetence.

This does occasionally happen, e.g. Atlanta passed a 1% sales-tax to fund sewer-system replacement. There are lots of anti-tax voters, though. Another problem is that many states: 1) won't pay for the water-system improvements out of state revenues, but also 2) heavily constrain the ability of local governments to raise their own tax revenue, even when the local citizens support it. Atlanta had to lobby the state legislature for years to be allowed to pass its 1% sewer sales tax. That's also why a sales tax was chosen, even though they're somewhat regressive, because it was the only option they thought they could get through the very conservative state legislature.

The politician who raises taxes or shuts down water delivery may be replaced at the next election by the one that doesn't and keeps the lead pipes.

Sure, that's why you end up with incompetent and corrupt people in power.

I don't think you can call this fictional public servant incompetent and corrupt. He's just doing what the people wanted. That shortsightedness and aversion to investment is problem of the electorate.

When the people's wishes result in poisoning children, a good public servant doesn't just say "OK" and do it. "Just following orders" isn't any better just because those orders come through a democratic process. When it's that bad you fight it, you show people the consequences of what they're asking for, and if they insist then you either refuse or resign in protest.

Edit: it occurs to me that this characterization of "just doing what the people wanted" is probably completely wrong anyway. I'm sure there was never a public meeting in Flint, for example, where city officials stood up before the public and laid out the plan to switch water supplies and the subsequent poisoning of the entire city that would result.

But that's not the situation outlined in the thread. It's the public servant that see the lead pipes, the dangerous and untenable situation and takes action. Then he's sacked for taking action. What then?

Then someone new takes the position and the process repeats.

You can certainly blame the public for electing incompetent or corrupt public officials. Said officials also shoulder the blame for fucking up the water system. That they would be fired for doing the right thing does not absolve them in the least.

I'm not saying you can't blame the people for who they choose to govern, merely that the people who govern are also to blame.

The situation for Flint specifically is complicated by the fact that the city has an emergency manager appointed by the governor. The elected council approved the decision to switch as well, so the locals aren't free from responsibility either, but there's plenty of opportunity for finger-pointing in many directions.

I find the scenario believable, but I think the mechanism by which the 'good' politician is getting sacked is more complex. I think s/he is getting sacked because s/he spent a lot of political capitol on a difficult undertaking that doesn't bring much credit back to her/him. Improving decaying infrastructure doesn't insert a positive 'this politician accomplished' association into many voters minds. S/he's just doing the things that voters assume happen on their own anyway. On the other hand, the 'bad' politician that ignored the issue had a nice extra bit of political capitol to spend on flashier issues like crime, lowering taxes, etc.

So, rather than it being a "the people have spoken" situation, I think that the situation is driven by constraints on public attention for political issues. I don't think you would get many voters endorsing continued poisoning of the population when a marginal increase (or reshifting) of taxes could address the issue. Rather I think that it is rarely ever politically advantageous to spearhead these kind of issues (that is until it explodes into an attention grabbing crisis, as is now the case with Flint lead poisoning).

We can see this sort of thing in microcosm in office politics as well. How often are we complaining about always being reactionary and putting out fires instead of proactively taking care of problems before they can cause a lot of damage? Well, once a fire starts, everyone is keen to figure out what's causing it and how to deal with it. But recognizing the pre-conditions that could potentially lead to a fire, and then eliminating them sound much more boring[1], and often requires a concerted information campaign just to get people invested in supporting the mitigation. But if there's an actual [2] fire, people are immediately interested by the inherent drama of the situation, and attention is no longer a barrier to overcome.

[1] even that description of it sounded much more boring than the bit about fire! [2] an 'actual' figurative 'fire'. I know the wording is sub-optimal, but I'm pot committed to this metaphor so...

When a certain political party actively campaigns to convince people that (a) privatizing everything and (b) cutting all taxes will help the little guy, then it's absolutely to speak of moral and ethical corruption.

When you fail to communicate the urgency of replacing dangerous pipes to your electorate, you're (at best) incompetent.

Except this specific thread is all about how the municipal system is failing because either the populace won't vote for investment or higher political bodies block it.

In that case privatisation can work because it removes short term political incentives from the equation. Corporate structures enable investment and charging what is needed - plus things like water conservation ironically are often pursued more by those with financial stake in the game.

A private water utility can be sued into oblivion or killed by regulators over lead issues - yet a public system gets some soul searching articles that still mostly manage to blame capitalists while ignoring the failures of regulators. "Better regulation" is hard to achieve, but America in many ways seems to be truly shocking in how poorly regulated many areas are.

There is no chance that government can just hand over a hard problem to a private entity, and then make the private entity accountable for screwing it up. What private company would take that deal, and how would you draw blood from the stone when they screw up?

And the town that votes this way gets lead in its pipes.

Now that we've stated the obvious, it shouldn't be too hard to agree that "privatise everything" and "cut all taxes" is an extraordinarily stupid way to vote. Flint is evidence that some things are too critical to be privatized.

Is Flint's water privatized?

Part of the problem is that Flint neither voted this way, nor is it privatized. The state took over the city government and installed a city manager who made the decisions that led to this situation.

>It's politically untenable for water boards to raise rates, especially since water bills are not progressive (seniors and the poor pay the same rate as rich people).<

Based on my experience this is a key factor...

Just maintaining an aged system--making repairs to keep the water flowing--sometimes fully stretches the yearly budget...

I have a friend, a local businessman, who serves on the board of our local rural water district...he is a good man, serving with other good men and women, and the community is lucky to have such responsible citizens...in ways that they cannot even begin to imagine...

The board meets regularly to to review appeals from citizens who cannot afford that month's water bill...in almost all cases extensions are granted...

This is an infrastructure issue just as much as it is a health issue...don't get me wrong, safety is critical, absolutely...often utilities are doing the best they can with what they have to work with...all the while fully aware of what would be required for them to do better...

Blaming the tax-system is an intellectually-lazy solution. "Here kids, we can't afford water without lead so take this." Super competent.

1) He's not blaming the tax-system. He's blaming the rate setting system.

2) How is that intellectually lazy? It seems like a perfectly reasonable point of view to me: fixing the system to remove the lead would cost money. Since rates are too low, the money isn't available to do that.

He's not saying the status quo is acceptable. He's pointing out what is necessary to fix it.

Gee it's almost like certain things shouldn't be privatized and profit-driven...

I never was able to wrap my head around this argument. If something is both (a) not commercially viable and (b) necessary, then it should be funded by taxed and operate (gasp!) at a loss.

Capitalist economics work really well for certain problems, and abysmally for others. Public water works falls into the latter category, as evidenced by Flint.

I don't think this is a good example of what you're trying to argue. It could easily be said that if water was privately provided, rates could be set such that the economics are feasible (everyone needs water - the demand curve is highly inelastic). Competition could ensure the water is pure and fairly priced. Who would go with Company A's lead-laden water if B's is clean?

I happen to disagree with the argument I just provided, but for reasons different than the quality of service a free market would provide.

> Who would go with Company A's lead-laden water if B's is clean?

That's not a realistic scenario however as that implies that each company would set up its own plumbing infrastructure, water sources, etc. In reality, the infrastructure is shared. So I see no reason why the choice wouldn't target be between "company A who has lead-laden water, company B who does some extra purification and charges for it heavily and company C who serves the exact same water as A but has better advertisements."

What would be the incentive to actually fix the infrastructure if it benefited your competition just as much as you?

Yes but as the parent points out, even public goods are budget-constrained.

So they won't measure it because they can't afford to fix it? It still sounds like corruption to me.

One time money influx from feds solves that beautifully. And is viable economic stimulus that creates a lot of blu-ish collar jobs. We could have done that in 2009-2010. And as a bonus it helps the poorest areas the most.

This would have been an ideal stimulus project, if the stimulus had been more about stimulus and less about pork-barrel spending for politically-favored groups.

(And now you understand why so many Americans are skeptical of calls to just raise taxes to fix the infrastructure or the social problem de jure: they believe the alternative is just as bad and more expensive)

> This would have been an ideal stimulus project, if the stimulus had been more about stimulus and less about pork-barrel spending for politically-favored groups.

Politically-favored groups like Wall Street and defense contractors? And Alaskan islands, if I recall?

Well remove the protection government employees have, sovereign immunity protects both negligent government employees as well the entire bureaucratic structure. In other words, if a privately managed water system is found deficient or worse individuals are found knowingly negligent they can be held liable criminally. When it comes to the public sector this is not true, you cannot sue the people or government organization involved. You can only make a claim against their insurance if that is allowed and they can decide if it is.

If we are going to continue to have important services be run by government we must life the sovereign immunity they enjoy. This will raise the accountability so they act in our best interest.

> In other words, if a privately managed water system is found deficient or worse individuals are found knowingly negligent they can be held liable criminally

That certainly worked well with the banking industry.

Let's not forget that banking is a government-protected industry. A big recourse that a lot of people have in the normal, private space is to switch to a competitor. This naturally leads to competitors that try out things that are different to things you don't like. That mechanism is simply not present in the banking industry precisely because it's controlled (regulated/restricted entry) by government.

That was acutely tied up in consequences for politicians and regulators - and as Flint is showing the one thing political turkeys don't vote for is Christmas jailtime for themselves. The Federal Government actively encouraged the mortgage crash through encouraging uneconomical home ownership and destroying banking regulation.

"Big water" is not the banking industry, the disparity between regulator and regulated is much less likely to occur and the opportunities for mega profits with which to bribe politicians, and allow them to bribe us with the resultant tax take, simply aren't there.

But what if cities simply increased spending to defend against this increased quantity of lawsuits?

Wouldn't more money be diverted _away from_ important areas like water system infrastructure and _toward_ lawyers and legal defense teams?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com