Judge Feikens to no longer oversee the Water Department.

**kraig** · November-26-10, 09:16 AM

http://www.freep.com/article/2010112...ter-department

Here we go.

**Gistok** · November-26-10, 04:13 PM

I knew he was old and been around a long time... but geeze.... 93 years old.... the Federal Judiciary needs to have a mandatory retirement rule.... when the federal courts were set up over 2 centuries ago, life expectancy was rather short, so liftetime tenure was much different then that it is now.

**JBMcB** · November-28-10, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

when the federal courts were set up over 2 centuries ago, life expectancy was rather short, so liftetime tenure was much different then that it is now.

I don't know, it may be a problem, but I'd rather have a sharp 80 year-old judge than a 40 year-old who's a blithering idiot.

**Jimaz** · November-28-10, 08:10 PM

FWIW, I read an article recently about a study that found that older people really are wiser, especially regarding social matters.

But try to get them to program a VCR. That's another matter.

Are VCRs still made?

**DetroitPlanner** · November-28-10, 11:13 PM

I'm mostly concerned about having a suburban republican put in charge of the water and waste issues. There have been a lot of fights over how much control the City has with this utility. It needs to be one system to be function at a high level of service. Yes coordination is needed, but the City should not be in a position of having to expand the system at the whim of developers on the periphery of the metropolitan service area. We will all end up with higher water bills to pay for this. Accessibility to water is one of the few cards the city can play in drawing development.

**1KielsonDrive** · November-29-10, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

I don't know, it may be a problem, but I'd rather have a sharp 80 year-old judge than a 40 year-old who's a blithering idiot.

Agreed. And Feikens was very sharp, though moving slowly, when I last saw him a few years ago. I originally dealt with him in a controversial water and sewer separation project in Allen Park during the 80's which involved the Detroit Water Department. He was sharp as a tack, though we didn't agree on everything. I'd often speak to him as a fellow member of the UoM Dugout Club - he was president, and I'd see him occasionally along the shopping strip in GP City - Krogers and Borders. He was slow moving but quick of mind. Mandatory retirement? That usually only applies to a person on the opposite side of the political fence from you.

**Hermod** · November-29-10, 02:45 PM

[quote=DetroitPlanner;20Accessibility to water is one of the few cards the city can play in drawing development.[/quote]

If the city decided to play hardball, how long would it take the burbs to run an intake line into Lake Saint Clair?

Then the city would be stuck with a mammoth bureaucracy serving a bunch of dead beat customers who are very unreliable in paying their bills.. Talk about high water bills??

**kraig** · November-29-10, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

If the city decided to play hardball, how long would it take the burbs to run an intake line into Lake Saint Clair?

Then the city would be stuck with a mammoth bureaucracy serving a bunch of dead beat customers who are very unreliable in paying their bills.. Talk about high water bills??

Cost prohibitive. Every time a suburban community wastes money on a study to see if it's cost feasible to leave the Detroit system that's the conclusion that is reached.

Most suburban communities are banking on Detroit raising their rates, so that, they in turn, can raise the rates on their own residents at an amount that is far disproportional than the increase that Detroit raised in the first place.

I rememeber about 4-6 years ago when Detroit actually lowered the rate for Harper Woods. Yet Harper Woods didn't lower the rate for its residents.

**Hermod** · November-29-10, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

Cost prohibitive. Every time a suburban community wastes money on a study to see if it's cost feasible to leave the Detroit system that's the conclusion that is reached.

Only cost prohibitive if the current situation continues.

If Detroit becomes unreasonable, it won't be cost prohibitive.

**DetroitPlanner** · November-29-10, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Only cost prohibitive if the current situation continues.

If Detroit becomes unreasonable, it won't be cost prohibitive.

Building another system would cost billions and they would need to figure out a way to cut the current lines with Detroit. Detroit has intakes in the suburbs, inlcuding places as far away as Port Huron. It supplies water to a huge area that covers places like Flint,Frankenmuth. Bottom line is that it is a complicated system. You can't just rebuild it from scratch. If this happens, the suburb would have not enough capacity and the City would have excess capacity, not exactly a smart thing when you are trying to deliver something to the region at a reasonable cost.

**kraig** · November-29-10, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Only cost prohibitive if the current situation continues.

If Detroit becomes unreasonable, it won't be cost prohibitive.

Has Detroit been unreasonable? Detroit has always been a target for bashing, but let's put everything into perspective. Water is a utility just like gas and electricity. Our gas and power bills have gone up at a greater rate over the years than our water has.