Farmington Hills proposal to opt out SMART busses.

[Hermod]

This is a logical response.
For water, you're right.

Except that Detroit makes a profit selling water. Should Detroit decide to quit doing that, how long before Mt Clemens, Wyandotte, St Clair Shores, or other waterside communities decide to build a water plant to sell water to the burbs??

[Det_ard]

Except that Detroit makes a profit selling water. Should Detroit decide to quit doing that, how long before Mt Clemens, Wyandotte, St Clair Shores, or other waterside communities decide to build a water plant to sell water to the burbs??

Exactly, and that's what would have happened if Detroit chose not to offer water to the burbs way back when the system was first extended outside the city. There'd be two systems today, and Detroit would be stuck paying for their water system all on their own, or at least being forced to compete with a suburban system. The fantasy that Detroit could have stopped suburban growth in its infancy by withholding water ignores the fact that it ain't THAT hard to get water around here. More inefficient than one system? Probably, but not a show stopper as far as suburban growth is concerned.

[Detroitnerd]

Exactly, and that's what would have happened if Detroit chose not to offer water to the burbs way back when the system was first extended outside the city. There'd be two systems today, and Detroit would be stuck paying for their water system all on their own, or at least being forced to compete with a suburban system. The fantasy that Detroit could have stopped suburban growth in its infancy by withholding water ignores the fact that it ain't THAT hard to get water around here. More inefficient than one system? Probably, but not a show stopper as far as suburban growth is concerned.

Don't underestimate the start-up costs of a water system. They are significant, and have only gotten higher as federal mandates have been implemented.

And I don't think the argument is that Detroit could have stopped suburban growth in its infancy. It's just that Detroit chose to sell its water, thereby offering a subsidy to suburban development. That fact should neither be overstated or underestimated.

[Det_ard]

Don't underestimate the start-up costs of a water system. They are significant, and have only gotten higher as federal mandates have been implemented.

And I don't think the argument is that Detroit could have stopped suburban growth in its infancy. It's just that Detroit chose to sell its water, thereby offering a subsidy to suburban development. That fact should neither be overstated or underestimated.

I basically agree. It would have been costly, but not a show-stopper back then.

[Hermod]

Don't underestimate the start-up costs of a water system. They are significant, and have only gotten higher as federal mandates have been implemented. FLOAT REVENUE BONDS FOR THE INVESTMENT COSTSD OF THE SYSTEM AND THE WATER SALES TO THE USERS TO PAY THE BOND SINKING FUND, CURRENT OPERATING COSTS, AND A SLIGHT PROFIT.

And I don't think the argument is that Detroit could have stopped suburban growth in its infancy. It's just that Detroit chose to sell its water AT A PROFIT, thereby offering a subsidy to suburban development. That fact should neither be overstated or underestimated.

North of 14 mile, the burbs had their own well systems.

[jt1]

Except that Detroit makes a profit selling water. Should Detroit decide to quit doing that, how long before Mt Clemens, Wyandotte, St Clair Shores, or other waterside communities decide to build a water plant to sell water to the burbs??

DWSD is not allowed to generate a profit. Yuo can argue that Detroit or other communities may benefit by shared cost of infrastructure but the DWSD can not generate a profit.

A quote from DWSD:

By law, DWSD can only recover the cost of service – it

cannot make a profit. If “more people ride the bus,� or

a lot more water is sold than expected, the extra funds
received must be used for the system and offset the
need to increase rates in the future.

These extra funds

cannot be diverted to non-DWSD activities.

Just another bs statement that, if said enough, becomes fact to too many people.

[Hermod]

DWSD is not allowed to generate a profit. Yuo can argue that Detroit or other communities may benefit by shared cost of infrastructure but the DWSD can not generate a profit.

A quote from DWSD:

By law, DWSD can only recover the cost of service – it

cannot make a profit. If “more people ride the bus,� or

a lot more water is sold than expected, the extra funds
received must be used for the system and offset the
need to increase rates in the future.

These extra funds

cannot be diverted to non-DWSD activities.

Just another bs statement that, if said enough, becomes fact to too many people.

If Detroit makes a "profit" on the water sold to other communities, it can be put back into the DWSD system anywhere DWSD wants to put it. If DSWD makes a "profit" selling water to Ferndale, DWSD doesn't have to spend that money in Ferndale, they can use it to upgrade the pipes in SW Detroit or hire 3 or 4 more secretaries for the boss to chase around.

[SaintMe]

Except that Detroit makes a profit selling water. Should Detroit decide to quit doing that, how long before Mt Clemens, Wyandotte, St Clair Shores, or other waterside communities decide to build a water plant to sell water to the burbs??

For the record, Wyandotte has provided community owned municipal services to it's residents for more than a century.