By now, nearly everyone knows multiple government officials in Michigan knowingly poisoned thousands of men, women, and children after the city switched its municipal water source from the Detroit water system to the Flint River. Now, however, as if poisoning residents and their children weren’t enough, the city of Flint is threatening to take people’s homes for refusing to pay for the tainted water.
Although Flint — which blew wide open a year ago — is largely out of the headlines, the crisis is still unfolding. Residents are still unable to drink the water, leaving most families to rely on bottled water for everything from brushing their teeth to cooking and bathing.
In spite of multiple officials facing criminal charges, there hasn’t been a single conviction. The only people to face any consequences thus far, over the atrocity in Flint, are the citizens who are forced to pay for unusable water.
After the city made the switch in 2014, Melissa Mays, 37, said her and her family began developing rashes and their hair started to fall out. Her neighbors all had the same issues. Once she realized it was their tap water, Mays turned into a clean water activist.
Since discovering she, her husband, and her three children had all been poisoned by the water coming out of their tap, Mays stopped paying her water bill. Now, the city who poisoned her is threatening to take their home if she continues to refuse to pay for poison water.
“I got scared, for probably the first time since this all started, this actually scared me,” said Mays.
As NBC 25 reports, Mays received the notice in the mail Friday stating that she must pay nearly $900 by May 19 to avoid a lien being placed on her property.
The Mays are not the only family who stands to lose their home for refusing to pay for tainted water either. In fact, over 8,000 people got a notice this week just like the one Mays got.
For those who refuse to pay their bills in full by May 19, they city will foreclose on their homes and take them.
Mays will now have to compromise her principles to avoid having the government steal her home.
“While I understand this is the way the law reads we are in a totally different situation,” said Mays, noting that she’d been poisoned.
Government officials remain entirely unapologetic. In spite of the EPA awarding a $100 million grant to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to fund drinking water infrastructure upgrades in Flint, city leaders say they need the money.
“We have to have revenue coming in, so we can’t give people revenue, I mean excuse me, give people water at the tap and not get revenue coming in to pay those bills,” said Al Mooney, City of Flint Treasury Department.
Mooney says the shut offs are already working in the city’s favor. Last month Flint brought in nearly $3 million for water. That is nearly $1 million more from the month prior when they only collected $2.1 million, NBC 25 reports.
Mooney hopes that threatening to steal people’s homes — for refusing to pay for poison water they can’t use — will result in a windfall for the city. He noted that those 8,000 plus tax liens would bring in nearly $6 million for the city.
To be clear, no one here is advocating for people not to pay their bills. However, choosing not to pay for a terrible and dangerous service — that you do not want and is forced on you — is hardly unethical. In fact, had there been competition in water services, this problem may have never happened.
When government knowingly poisons you and your children to save a buck — and then tells you they are going to steal your house when you refuse to finance said poisoning — something has gone seriously wrong.
Please share this article with your friends and family to let them know how the government of Flint is treating its citizens.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
#1: Justified To: Deckard (#0)
Its the peoples fault any who! They elected these corrupt POS who just screwed them while telling them what they wanted to hear. I don't feel even a bit sorry for them and now let them lie in the bed they made. Do not ask the rest of the world to pay for what they should have!!!
Justified posted on 2017-05-05 08:58:58 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
If people refuse to pay for bad water, I support that. But the water is not bad anymore.
Plus, the article fails to mention that residential customers received a 65 percent credit on their bills paid between April 2014 and April 2016.
misterwhite posted on 2017-05-05 10:20:46 Reply Private Reply
#3: BobCeleste To: Deckard (#0)
Forget term limits!
It is time to legalize dueling.
Society would be polite and politicians would be honest.
BobCeleste posted on 2017-05-06 17:36:05 Reply Private Reply
#4: Stoner To: BobCeleste (#3)
Good idea Bob!
Many Congress Critters would find a large number of their constituents lined up to take their turn !
For many, pistols would be too quick. For some, I would suggest tire tools & butcher knives! LOL
Stoner posted on 2017-05-08 20:58:27 Reply Private Reply
#5: Stoner To: misterwhite (#2)
Really ? and you believe that huh? I guess you would be willing to drink their water, and let your family drink it also?
Okaaaay.
Stoner posted on 2017-05-09 07:50:04 Reply Private Reply
#6: Deckard To: Stoner (#5)
Well, the EPA "said" it was safe to drink.
That's good enough for whitey.
Deckard posted on 2017-05-09 08:36:52 Reply Private Reply
#7: misterwhite To: Stoner (#5)
I didn't say they should drink it. I said they have no excuse not to pay their bill.
misterwhite posted on 2017-05-09 10:31:01 Reply Private Reply
#8: Stoner To: misterwhite (#7)
Stoner posted on 2017-05-09 15:37:18 Reply Private Reply
#9: misterwhite To: Stoner (#8)
Yes I did. And, based on that, they should pay their bill.
I used to work for a bottled water company that delivered 5-gallon drinking water to homes and businesses. Every single customer had city water that was safe to drink. Yet they they they chose bottled water to drink.
Certainly city water can be used to wash in, do laundry, wash dishes, flush toilets, water lawns, wash cars, etc. And I'm sure it's used for that purpose -- even in Flint.
So, pay the f**king water bill and STFU.
misterwhite posted on 2017-05-09 15:45:49 Reply Private Reply
#10: BobCeleste To: Stoner (#4)
It didn't take much pondering to agree with the wisdom of that statement.
BobCeleste posted on 2017-05-10 07:45:27 Reply Private Reply
#11: Stoner To: misterwhite (#9)
Well, if the water there is anything like the photo in the OP, I would not pay for it. Hell, I would not live there. The minute it started getting bad, I would have packed up my family & moved.
" "Whitey, in your # 5, you stated: " That has now been fixed and the EPA said the water is safe to drink. "
Yes I did. And, based on that, they should pay their bill. " And I will ask again. Would YOU drink that water, and would you let YOUR family drink that water ???
I didn't think so.
Get off the cheer leading for the AUTHORITY. You are much smarter than you are appearing on this thread.
Stoner posted on 2017-05-10 09:55:58 Reply Private Reply
#12: misterwhite To: Stoner (#11)
As the homeowner, it is ultimately my responsibility to see that my family has safe water. If I lived in Flint, given all that happened, I'd have my water tested at the kitchen sink. The water source may be safe, but the pipes leading to my house may not be. If the kitchen sink water was safe, of course I'd drink it.
But my point was that only a small fraction of the water coming into your house is used for drinking. Therefore, the residents should pay their water bill.
misterwhite posted on 2017-05-10 10:34:26 Reply Private Reply
#13: Stoner To: misterwhite (#12)
Your point has been noted. It has also been found to be irrelevent, immaterial, and is a worthless spin, to try to argue for and to take up for the AUTHORITY.
The fact remains that the city of Flint is selling the citizens a worthless product.
I personally would not live there, and I damn sure would not allow my family or I to consume that crappy water.
Further discussion with you on this matter is a waste of time. I have seen you take very logical positions on other issues. You have not on this one.
Adios
Stoner posted on 2017-05-10 17:50:38 Reply Private Reply
#14: misterwhite To: Stoner (#13)
Then my point has NOT been noted. Their product has worth for 95% of what it's used for. And the EPA has said the other 5% is safe.
Pay the bill.
misterwhite posted on 2017-05-10 18:14:25 Reply Private Reply