|
Neville
|
I posted the following on the Cincinnati Beacon site article about the CWW proposal. Second, under the Ohio Sunshine Laws, Water District are considered “Special Purpose Districts” and are subject to open records requests. The entire premise of this release - that district “will not respond to basic public information requests from citizens because the entity is now private” - is patently false. Because the district, as a public utility (as currently proposed) or a private utility (as exists elsewhere in the state), serves the public good, it is subject to requests for public information. Smitherman loses again. The article can be accessed HERE and is a copy of a press release from the NAACP wherein Smitherman claims that the proposal would lead to privitazation (which it won't) and thus would not be subject to Ohio's sunshine laws regarding public records. I did some research this afternoon on the topic, and water districts are subject to the Sunshine Laws just as any other public entity is, even if they are private utilities because they serve a public good. Is there anyone who can corroborate my understanding of the wording of the laws. There are some 230 pages to the set of laws and I did not read through the whole thing word-for-word.
|
|
|
|
UncleRando
|
Waterworks sale up to Cincy votersCincinnatians almost certainly will get to decide in November on whether the city can sell its 170-year-old waterworks without voter approval. Opponents of the proposed sale – the NAACP, COAST, WeDemandAVote and other groups – collected more than 14,000 signatures on their petition to require voter permission, the NAACP announced Thursday. That’s more than twice the 6,150 needed to put the issue on the ballot. So far, the Hamilton County Board of Elections has verified 5,925 – close enough to the amount to prompt NAACP President Christopher Smitherman to say voters will get their say. Read full article here:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090702/NEWS0108/907030321/1055/NEWS/Waterworks+sale+up+to+Cincy+voters
|
|
|
|
Sherman Cahal
|
So I read that earlier in the Enquirer and my draw just dropped on that last line.
|
|
|
|
Ram23
|
“African-Americans did not have the right to vote for over 400 years in this country and now we are putting issues on the ballot,” Smitherman said. “That is history.”
 ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
arenn
|
Why would Cincinnati want to sell its water utility?
Louisville owns its water company, and collects nice dividends from it.
Indianapolis privatized its water company management, then sold the utility, then repurchased it, then privatized management again. It has been a completely fiasco.
Control of utilities is a huge lever cities have. Why give them up without something major in return? Don't sell your birthright for a bowl of soup.
|
|
|
|
dmerkow
|
It isn't actually being privatized. They want to transition it to a water district from a city department.
|
|
|
|
arenn
|
Why? Sounds like regionalization of the utility. Not per se a bad things but what are the suburbs giving up?
|
|
|
|
dmerkow
|
The idea seems to be that the city would 'sell' the water works (which covers a greater percentage of the region) to a regional system and then get cash in hand for 75 years and the new water district would be a semi-independent. The sewer system already follows this model. The Water Works has long been a major patronage home and some of the folks opposing seem to think they would lose the ability to manipulate the system to get their constituents jobs.
|
|
|
|
arenn
|
Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Selling assets for cash now is similar to what Detroit is looking to do with the Windsor Tunnel.
I don't think per se it is a bad deal, but regionalizing a water system through a district would be something I'd be looking to leverage some type of real quid pro quo, not just money. Something that binds the city and suburbs together tighter, rather than just letting the suburbs pay cash. Cash comes with no moral obligation.
|
|
|
|
LincolnKennedy
|
The idea seems to be that the city would 'sell' the water works (which covers a greater percentage of the region) to a regional system and then get cash in hand for 75 years and the new water district would be a semi-independent. The sewer system already follows this model. The Water Works has long been a major patronage home and some of the folks opposing seem to think they would lose the ability to manipulate the system to get their constituents jobs. I have to disagree with the last sentence. The issue comes down to this: the city owned waterworks can sell excess service capacity to other municipalities and counties. However, they can't build any capacity to directly tap this market; rather, anything they build has to have some direct benefit for people in the City. So, the city water works can't build a plant in northern Hamilton County in order to directly service the growth occurring in the northern suburbs, but a water district could, provided that Springfield Township or some place like that would elect to join the district. The way this works is that the Cincinnati Water Works would transform itself into the independent Greater Cincinnati Water District; however, in the very beginning, the District would only be contiguous with the borders of Cincinnati. Only after the operating agreements ended between the Water Works (now District) and the other constituencies it serves would those municipalities join the district as communities with equal status as Cincinnati. What's silly about this is that Water is a core city service. Cincinnati, through its size, intelligent past investments, etc. is able to provide this service at a much better level than other municipalities, and at a lower operating cost. This is probably true of other core services, like police and fire and trash removal as well. But of course, state rules prohibit cities that provide core services more efficiently from absorbing those that are less efficient. They say that changing the rules to allow CWW to operate more like a business would be nigh-impossible, and require a change to the state constitution. You know something like this fifth casino-ballot initiative we're on now.
|
|
|
|
arenn
|
Thanks, Lincoln. How did Columbus overcome this? I know they provide water service outside the annexed areas.
|
|
|
|
arenn
|
 |
« Reply #72 on: August 23, 2009, 05:26:02 PM » |
|
Hi - resurrecting this topic.
Does anyone have any links to pro/con sites for this Water Works sale? Presumably I could go to the usual suspects for the anti-side, but would like to see the most compelling rationale from the pro side as well. Of course, additional perspectives from the insightful crew here is always welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UncleRando
|
|
« Reply #75 on: November 03, 2009, 04:59:28 PM » |
|
I'm growing very tired of these Government By Referendum ballot items that COAST keeps placing on the ballot. I understand they can't get a majority on City Council or compete for the Mayor's seat, but this is not the way to go about things. Put up some better candidates and work within our Representative Democracy instead of trying to find a loophole that benefits your special interests.
|
|
|
|
Living in Gin
|
|
« Reply #76 on: November 03, 2009, 05:04:38 PM » |
|
^ Hear, hear. Even if Issue 9 is defeated, I hope Cincinnatians for Progress sticks around and remains a force to counter the COAST/Smitherman/Haap crackpots who treat the city charter like a political playpen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neville
|
|
« Reply #78 on: November 04, 2009, 10:10:09 AM » |
|
Issue 8 passed btw.
I don't think that's going to be as big of a deal. Even if the city had decided it was going to try to sell the WW, a judge could have forced a public vote anyway.
|
|
|
|
xumelanie
|
|
« Reply #79 on: November 04, 2009, 01:30:34 PM » |
|
Issue 8 passed btw.
I don't think that's going to be as big of a deal. Even if the city had decided it was going to try to sell the WW, a judge could have forced a public vote anyway.
The bigger deal is that something from Smitherman and COAST won.
|
|
|
|
Neville
|
|
« Reply #80 on: November 04, 2009, 02:40:51 PM » |
|
True... but there was no campaign against it either... easy to win when there is no opponent.
|
|
|
|
Living in Gin
|
|
« Reply #81 on: November 04, 2009, 02:44:04 PM » |
|
I didn't have any strong feelings about the waterworks proposal one way or the other, but the mere fact that Smitherman and COAST opposed it led me to believe it was probably a worthwhile idea. It's a shame that Issue 8's passage gives them something to crow about, but I don't think this will cripple the city the way Issue 9 would have.
|
|
|
|
cincySAL
|
|
« Reply #82 on: November 04, 2009, 04:20:52 PM » |
|
Issue 8 passed btw.
I don't think that's going to be as big of a deal. Even if the city had decided it was going to try to sell the WW, a judge could have forced a public vote anyway.
And what does the general public know about selling public services? That's the problem with these things. The general public doesn't know anything about it therefore they shouldn't be voting on it. Leave it to the people we elected to make the decisions (I'm not directing this at you).
|
|
|
|
Ram23
|
|
« Reply #83 on: November 04, 2009, 06:20:54 PM » |
|
I never understood COAST's opinion on this. Wouldn't maximizing the efficiency of a government service by privatizing be something they approved of?
|
|
|
|
xumelanie
|
|
« Reply #84 on: November 04, 2009, 09:20:03 PM » |
|
I never understood COAST's opinion on this. Wouldn't maximizing the efficiency of a government service by privatizing be something they approved of?
I didn't understand it either. I figured COAST would have been in favor of privatizing services as well.
|
|
|
|
LincolnKennedy
|
|
« Reply #85 on: November 04, 2009, 11:04:12 PM » |
|
^ You all are thinking far too rationally. Ever notice how COAST typically has two ballot issues going on at any one time? This year it was Waterworks (although the cost and planning of that campaign was actually born and orchestrated by AFSCME, the local public sector workers union, COAST mostly just jumped on the bandwagon) and Issue 9, their main target. Last year it was red light cameras (what constituency was going to be in favor of this?) and proportional representation (which is what the poll workers were actually pushing on election day 2008). They have two issues every year, one that they actually push, and one that is clearly popular that they can attach their name to and claim a thereby claim success when it passes. These guys are largely paper tigers.
|
|
|
|
Living in Gin
|
|
« Reply #86 on: November 04, 2009, 11:10:11 PM » |
|
Since they claim to be such libertarians, think they'll try to get Cincinnati to follow the lead of Breckenridge, Colorado and legalize pot? I'd sign that petition.
|
|
|
|
jim uber
|
|
« Reply #87 on: November 04, 2009, 11:43:52 PM » |
|
I never understood COAST's opinion on this. Wouldn't maximizing the efficiency of a government service by privatizing be something they approved of?
I didn't understand it either. I figured COAST would have been in favor of privatizing services as well.
The waterworks issue was essentially a tax on suburbs, and that's why COAST opposed it. Again, if it's good for the city, look for COAST to oppose the measure. Creating a water district and selling the proceeds to it creates an income stream for the city, where there was none before (cincinnati water works can not generate a profit). So, where does this money come from? It comes from the new water district of course, which means it comes from increased water rates on its customers. But, part of the deal was to retain a lower rate for city of cincinnati residents. Thus, the bulk of the added cost is assigned to folks outside of the city limits - essentially a nifty tax on the suburbs with the city getting the proceeds. Now, I personally think that such a tax can be justified in many ways. However it provides exactly the sort of reasons for COAST to oppose it.
|
|
|
|
