Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:31 PM

marmar (60,828 posts)

Outrage Files: Private Water Company Squeezes Elderly N.J. Woman for Every Last Drop

Outrage Files: Private Water Company Squeezes Elderly N.J. Woman for Every Last Drop

The notion of a profit-driven multinational corporation controlling the supply of water to our homes (yes, the water we as humans rely on daily to drink, bathe and live) seems odd to many. Perhaps as odd as the notion of a corporation controlling (and charging us for) the sunshine we enjoy, or air we breathe. But with so much to worry about these days, it often takes an extreme case to remind us all just how absurd the privatization of water is. The recent case of 91-year old Camden, NJ resident Eleanor Sochanski and her $2,167.02 water bill should do the trick.

Actually, there have been many examples recently of privatized water delivery gone amuck. There was the matter of Toni Ray, of Carmel Valley, Ca., and her unexplained $9,800 monthly water bill from California-American Water last September. After a fight, Cal-Am agreed to reduce Ms. Ray’s bill to $2,300 out of “goodwill” but did nothing to explain the drastic increase over her typical $40 monthly usage.

And there was the matter of Joe Pezzano, of Middletown, NJ, whose water was completely shut off by New Jersey American Water Co. last month over an apparent overdue balance of $0.84. New Jersey American eventually blamed a computer error on the water disconnection. ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/outrage-files-private-water-company-squeezes-elderly-nj-woman-every-last-drop

11 replies, 1061 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

11 replies	Author	Time	Post
Outrage Files: Private Water Company Squeezes Elderly N.J. Woman for Every Last Drop (Original post)	marmar	Aug 2012	OP
thanks for the OP	otherone	Aug 2012	#1
No problem......and welcome to DU !!!!	marmar	Aug 2012	#2
The ultimate goal of repugs is to sell off the Great Lakes.	louis-t	Aug 2012	#3
DU Rec.	woo me with science	Aug 2012	#4
c'mon	JimmyBrkrz	Aug 2012	#6
Dearest Jimmy	Oilwellian	Aug 2012	#7
This isn't 1950....	JimmyBrkrz	Aug 2012	#8
I'm a baby boomer. Didn't grow up with an "I deserve this" attitude.	pinto	Aug 2012	#9
Better hope the water market is booming enough to capture the interest	Doremus	Aug 2012	#10
Why would you have to pay for your neighbor's water?	Ikonoklast	Aug 2012	#11
Ah, the joys of privatization.	Raster	Aug 2012	#5

Response to marmar (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:33 PM

otherone (365 posts)

1. thanks for the OP

Reply to this post

Response to otherone (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:34 PM

marmar (60,828 posts)

2. No problem......and welcome to DU !!!!

Reply to this post

Response to marmar (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:45 PM

louis-t (12,506 posts)

3. The ultimate goal of repugs is to sell off the Great Lakes.

Can you imagine the Koch Bros. owning the largest source of fresh water in the world?

Reply to this post

Response to marmar (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:51 PM

woo me with science (19,570 posts)

4. DU Rec.

We have not even begun to grasp the potential consequences of ceding our government and our lives to entities that exist only to profit from us.

We had better wake up together, and soon.

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:52 PM

JimmyBrkrz (2 posts)

6. c'mon

It's not really ceding to the government or private entities. The outrageous charges people have incurred are ridiculous but mistakes happen... and so do scams. On a realistic note- no one works for free. You can haul your own buckets of water from the pond and boil them if you don't like the service being offered to you. I personally have a well and get my drinking water delivered but well's aren't available everywhere. In New Jersey the water quality sucks, if a private company can provide a higher quality I am all for the option/mandate.

Reply to this post

Response to JimmyBrkrz (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:04 PM

Oilwellian (9,281 posts)

7. Dearest Jimmy

Last edited Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:05 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Water used to be a public utility and the cost of providing the service of water was shared by one and all, and their administrative costs were kept quite low. Kinda like Medicare & Medicaid & Social Security administrative costs average 3%. Those public servants responsible for providing us with water services were answerable to we the people. Corporations are only answerable to we the stockholders. Only a moron would give a private corporation control over a basic need for survival.

Reply to this post

Response to Oilwellian (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 04:18 PM

JimmyBrkrz (2 posts)

8. This isn't 1950....

Last edited Fri Aug 3, 2012, 04:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

It's the idea that you think a Private Corporation providing a service takes away your basic need of survival. If they outlaw water, THAT is taking away your basic need of survival. This is a free country and times change. While it must have been nice to grow up as a baby boomer, it's their "I deserve this" attitude that got us where we are today. I shouldn't have to pay for the neighborhood next door who waters their lawn every night, I should pay for my own usage. It makes sense, regardless if it's cheaper or not for some. Regardless of how you argue this, the only moron is someone who counts on someone else for their water- you have the choice and IMO the more choices, the better.

Reply to this post

Response to JimmyBrkrz (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:35 PM

pinto (97,891 posts)

9. I'm a baby boomer. Didn't grow up with an "I deserve this" attitude.

More of a "we're all in this together" attitude, to tell the truth.

Call me when the roads, rails and bridges start failing. A blind eye to infrastructure support is one big fail of Libertarian approaches.

Reply to this post

Response to JimmyBrkrz (Reply #8)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 12:17 AM

Doremus (5,136 posts)

10. Better hope the water market is booming enough to capture the interest

of more than one or two private companies or you could find yourself with dry pipes and no prospects for filling them.

'Free enterprise' is only beneficial for consumers when there is competition involved. Monopolies, whether due to consolidation/mergers, lack of interest, market shrink or any other reason, are disastrous for consumers.

Historically, like back in the dinosaur era of the 1950s

, wise people realized that basic human necessities like electricity and water shouldn't be left to the whims of for-profit companies that could cut and run for no reason whatsoever. $2000 water bills is just one example of the potential consequences.

There are legitimate purposes for government; assuring the accessibility and delivery of basic human needs is definitely one of them. Perhaps you should put your tin foil beanie and the bizarre worries about somehow having to pay for your neighbor's water (where the hell did THAT come from??) and use your cranium for what it was intended for: THINKING.

Reply to this post

Response to JimmyBrkrz (Reply #8)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 12:35 AM

Ikonoklast (21,631 posts)

11. Why would you have to pay for your neighbor's water?

And privatization of former public resources is giving you LESS choice, not more.

Reply to this post

Response to marmar (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:55 PM

Raster (12,615 posts)

5. Ah, the joys of privatization.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)