  Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 4 Registered: 07-2007 |
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070919/METRO /709190397 "Detroit Water to expand pipeline" Extension from Orion Township to Flint may cost current customers hundreds of millions of dollars. Robert Snell / The Detroit News DETROIT -- The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department on Tuesday proposed a major water-line extension that will stretch from northern Oakland County to Flint, potentially opening up large rural areas to development. The project -- the largest system expansion since the 1970s -- will cost several hundred million dollars and be paid for by water and sewer customers across southeast Michigan instead of merely by communities along the proposed route. The roughly 35-mile water line originally was proposed to be built in 2040 but was moved up to increase reliability, officials said. Critics, however, say it's because a rival study is under way that would establish a new water system and potentially siphon away customers who are dissatisfied with spending and rate hikes in Detroit's system. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 417 Registered: 05-2004 |
Who would pay for the new system? Hard to believe that they would get a better deal. | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 460 Registered: 07-2004 |
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! "Development" of large rural areas = disinvestment in existing suburbs and the City = surplus of new housing stock = declining home prices = cost of new roads, new schools, new police, new fire... If people want to "develop" farmland, let them pay for all the costs associated with doing so themselves. I'd like to fix the main near my home in Livonia that keeps flooding I-96 first. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3676 Registered: 02-2005 |
So much irony. A city entity is doing something to enable sprawl; developers want something that the residents who later move into their developments will resent because of high rates/connection to Detroit. | ||
Jiscodazz Member Username: Jiscodazz Post Number: 55 Registered: 02-2007 |
More infrastructure = More present and future costs. Pretty much all of Wayne County is developed, Oakland is next. SE Michigan truly has it's head up it's ass. | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 781 Registered: 10-2003 |
But the water line extension will accomodate the booming growth in population and jobs in metro Detroit. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 2546 Registered: 10-2003 |
There should be a protest against this. There is no reason I should pay for this unwarranted expansion. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1642 Registered: 04-2006 |
I thought I was reading the Onion when I saw the story this morning... | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1643 Registered: 04-2006 |
Btw, where does Flint get it's water? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2151 Registered: 06-2006 |
You guys do realize that you aren't opposing sprawl by opposing the extension of the water pipe...you're merely forfeiting water revenues that city of Detroit would otherwise be getting that will instead go the the rival water system the article mentions... | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1651 Registered: 04-2006 |
You guys do realize that you aren't opposing sprawl by opposing the extension of the water pipe...you're merely forfeiting water revenues that city of Detroit would otherwise be getting that will instead go the the rival water system the article mentions. By building a pipeline in the middle of nowhere? For a region that isn't growing? If Oakland County wants to do that then let them. When/if metro Detroit ever gets centralized again, who is going to live all the way up there? Who is going to live there when gas hits $5/gallon?! Detroit Water and Sewage needs to worry about serving Detroit and surrounding areas currently being served. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 2555 Registered: 10-2003 |
"You guys do realize that you aren't opposing sprawl by opposing the extension of the water pipe...you're merely forfeiting water revenues that city of Detroit would otherwise be getting that will instead go the the rival water system the article mentions..." Let the rival have it. And let THEIR customers pay for it. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3306 Registered: 10-2003 |
Let's reiterate this for Thejesus, and anyone else who doesn't believe that the inner city subsidizes sprawl: quote: <----Banging head on desk. | ||
Yooper Member Username: Yooper Post Number: 85 Registered: 12-2006 |
That's because you are a headbanger Dan! | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1190 Registered: 12-2005 |
Let's reiterate this for Danindc and anyone else who either can't - or choose not to - read the entire article: quote: Existing users throughout the system will benefit from the new large diameter water line because of the added redundancy that the new line provides in the case of a pipeline break, an intake shutdown or unbalanced demands on the system. Flint and 13 townships in Genesee County already receive their water from the Detroit system and this new line provides them with a second direction from which they can receive treated water. New users who would benefit from this extension would be charged their fair share when/if they choose to tap into it. Where is the "inner city subsidizes sprawl" in that? | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1714 Registered: 10-2006 |
"The project -- the largest system expansion since the 1970s -- will cost several hundred million dollars and be paid for by water and sewer customers across southeast Michigan instead of merely by communities along the proposed route." Metro Detroit never learns anything. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2152 Registered: 06-2006 |
DaninDC: You really like pulling idiotic comments out of your ass and attributing them to other posters so you can argue against them, don't you? That's not the first time I've seen you do that. Sure makes it easier for you to win your argument, doesn't it? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2153 Registered: 06-2006 |
"Let the rival have it. And let THEIR customers pay for it." And that's totally fine if you want to take an "I got mine, fuck everybody else" approach to this topic. But a lot of the early comments were anti-sprawl, and I was just pointing out that this proposed project is not enabling sprawl but rather about competing for water revenues that a rival already has their eyes on. | ||
Quozl Member Username: Quozl Post Number: 1469 Registered: 07-2005 |
quote:He is not a headbanger Yooper, he just pretends to be. Have you seen the photograph of him with the piss stain on his khaki's yelping it up with some babe wearing the red "Enjoy V*gina" T-Shirt? As MasterCard would say - PRICELESS. REAL headbangers know to shake the snake a few times and get rid of the pee drippin's before they close the barn door and head back into the bar for a photo op! | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 2561 Registered: 10-2003 |
How am I taking that approach? If you want to live out in the boondocks, have a well and a septic tank/field like everyone else who chose to live in the boonies did for years and years. There is zero demand for new housing, I see no reason to expand infrastructure and ask current residents in a strapped economy to foot the bill. I am far from taking the approach you accused me of. How many years of higher bills will we pay before these water revenues pay off? Will the bills paid by the current population the expansion will serve warrant the cost at this point, or is this plan based on the same type of speculation that contributed to the housing market crash? These are the type of questions that should be asked, not just blindly saying OK, take my money without allowing me to vote or express concerns. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2156 Registered: 06-2006 |
JL: Whatever you want to call your approach, my point is that the project is not enabling sprawl...you only need one water line to do that, and one is already planned...this is about competing for water revenues, and spending some money with the anticipation that it will generate a return. And your view on this is different than most other posters here like IHD...you beleive that those receiving services should be the one's paying for them... most posters here, on the other hand, agree with that notion if means money from their pockets will benefit people in Oakland county, but they disagree with it if it means money from Oakland county will benefit Wayne county and Detroit (Message edited by thejesus on September 19, 2007) | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 2562 Registered: 10-2003 |
I'm fine with the money benefiting Detroit, you're right. I just question the judgement, it seems like speculation to me at my own expense, without me being able to have a say. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3307 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thejesus, it's really very simple. Existing users pay for this upgrade. New development follows, and the people who inhabit the newly developed areas have paid nothing for the new infrastructure--because it was already paid for by people living in already-inhabited areas. If that's not subsidizing sprawl, I don't know what is. The *problem* in Michigan is that people keep doing things the same damned way they have for the past sixty years, and idealistic folks such as yourself keep hoping things turn out differently. Quozl--that was beer. Seriously. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1655 Registered: 04-2006 |
If that's not subsidizing sprawl, I don't know what is. The *problem* in Michigan is that people keep doing things the same damned way they have for the past sixty years, and idealistic folks such as yourself keep hoping things turn out differently. And realistic folks pack up and leave. | ||
Quozl Member Username: Quozl Post Number: 1470 Registered: 07-2005 |
Dan, please tell me you swapped shirts with that woman. Hers looked way too big and yours looked kinda tight... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3309 Registered: 10-2003 |
You are correct, sir. It was her idea, and frankly, after 12 beers or so, it seemed like it would be funny. All I know is it got her to strip down to her bra in the middle of the bar. You'd be surprised at the flattering compliments you get when wearing a shirt like that, but I wouldn't want to give any more fuel to the sewing circle on hotfudge. | ||
Quozl Member Username: Quozl Post Number: 1471 Registered: 07-2005 |
Huh? Delicious Sanders HF, right? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2157 Registered: 06-2006 |
Danindc: Yes, very good. The inner-city subsidizes sprawl. You get a gold star and a pat on the head for figuring out what the rest of us already knew. Now back to our discussion... | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1411 Registered: 07-2004 |
Every time the water system is extended, it places an undue burden on those using existing infrastructure. Those who live in densely populated areas subsidize those who live in suburban-style areas. And the political implications are grim. Expand the "city" system enough and you provide a political rationale for the suburb-heavy users who've paid in less wresting it away from the municipal authority that pumped capital into the system from the beginning. Now, if the system were ever all built out and paid for, it would be profitable, and, therefore, it would naturally be given away to the private sector. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1319 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: I fail to see ANY possible way that a pipeline through Oakland and Genessee counties adds any redundancy to current customers in Detroit, St. Clair Shores, or Warren, or Dearborn. Sorry. |
