Flint residents file class action suit for breach of contract re: poisoned water

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/stat ... ter-crisis

DETROIT - A class action lawsuit has been filed against the state of Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder and the city of Flint for what plaintiffs are calling negligence in the Flint water crisis.

Plaintiffs Doris Collins, Robin Pleasant and Jason Phinisee claim to have suffered injury from contaminated drinking water after the state "connected to the Flint River in a cost-cutting move," the lawsuit reads.

"Plaintiffs are currently still billed for the undrinkable water," the suit reads.

Gov. Rick Snyder, the state of Michigan, the city of Flint, former Flint emergency financial manager Darnell Earley (who is the current emergency manager for Detroit Public Schools), Howard Croft and "all others similarly situated" are named as defendants.

Croft recently resigned from his position as Flint Public Works director.

Attorney Brenda Williams is representing the plaintiffs.

The city of Flint's tap water became contaminated with too much lead after the city switched its water supply in 2014 to save money while under state financial management.

You can read the text of the suit here

The lawsuit is for, of all things, breach of contract. And the case looks pretty cut and dry. Additionally, the evidence that would get presented in such a suit is wheat for the mill of the current federal investigation and any subsequent suits.

[madd0ct0r]

On phone so avoiding potential pdf links. What's the context of this? Which one is flint? Not the methane well. Fracking?

[The Romulan Republic]

Corrosive water eating the lead pipes and causing lead poisoning of the city's water, apparently. I've been watching The Daily Show's coverage, and its appalling.

Good luck to them with the law suit.

[Alyrium Denryle]

On phone so avoiding potential pdf links. What's the context of this? Which one is flint? Not the methane well. Fracking?

In Michigan, the state government passed legislation that lets them take over city governments. They did this to Flint. The state-appointed city manager (who can override the decisions of elected officials, among other powers) unilaterally switched the city's water supply from Lake Huron (which is clean), to the Flint River (oh god, oh god no) a couple years ago, which corroded the pipes and lead to MASSIVE lead contamination. The state government knew about this, lied about it, actively covered it up and denied the existence of the problem.

Now they are being sued and the federal government is investigating as well under federal water quality legislation. Criminal sanctions are possible as well.

[madd0ct0r]

Where's the money?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Where's the money?

Usual republican "cost savings"

But in this case, the residents of Flint pay their utility bills predicated on the notion that the water they are paying for will be... you know... potable. By knowingly not providing said potable water, the state is in breach of contract.

[Mr Bean]

Where's the money?

Usual republican "cost savings"

But in this case, the residents of Flint pay their utility bills predicated on the notion that the water they are paying for will be... you know... potable. By knowingly not providing said potable water, the state is in breach of contract.

Fun fact, they have not stopped demanding payments despite the fact the water is know to not be potable. Technically speaking Flint residents could be due 8-10 months worth of refunds since the water has been containment for almost a year now never mind the millions in medical fees for the kids who might be coming down with a bit of the old "developmentally disabled".

[Jub]

Fun fact, they have not stopped demanding payments despite the fact the water is know to not be potable. Technically speaking Flint residents could be due 8-10 months worth of refunds since the water has been containment for almost a year now never mind the millions in medical fees for the kids who might be coming down with a bit of the old "developmentally disabled".

Don't forget mental anguish, cost of replacement drinking water, and legal fees.

[Civil War Man]

Where's the money?

Usual republican "cost savings"

But in this case, the residents of Flint pay their utility bills predicated on the notion that the water they are paying for will be... you know... potable. By knowingly not providing said potable water, the state is in breach of contract.

Fun fact, they have not stopped demanding payments despite the fact the water is know to not be potable. Technically speaking Flint residents could be due 8-10 months worth of refunds since the water has been containment for almost a year now never mind the millions in medical fees for the kids who might be coming down with a bit of the old "developmentally disabled".

On top of all of that, most of this could have been avoided if state officials were willing to pay about $100 per day to treat the water. They are so callous that they are willing to poison people in order to cut $100 from their daily operating costs.

[Patroklos]

Where's the money?

Usual republican "cost savings"

But in this case, the residents of Flint pay their utility bills predicated on the notion that the water they are paying for will be... you know... potable. By knowingly not providing said potable water, the state is in breach of contract.

Flint's financial troubles were caused by an uninterrupted chain of Democratic mayors. Their ruinous reign was brought to an end only when a Republican governor made one of his first acts to place the city in a state of emergency, an emergency the typically Democratic state government had ignored for a decade. The emergency manager who made all the decisions concerning the water situation is a Democrat. They had to change the water source because Detroit, run by Democrats, was overcharging. They had to turn to the flint river because the regional water authority Flint wanted to join, run by Democrats, hasn't allowed them to join yet.

There is not a single Republican involved in the process. The governor has no power to compel the city government or its emergency manager to do anything. Perhaps you agree with me that he was mistaken in appointing a Democrat as the emergency manager?

Btw flint't water is managed by the city, not the state. The emergency manager was appointed by the state, but he works via the city government. The contracts you mentioned and the bills to customers are from the City of Flint.

[Simon_Jester]

At this time I am not going to dispute any of the things you say about which party has done which things. I would not want to tread on ground where I might make a false step because of my ignorance of Michigan politics.

However, Patroklos, I think it is very disingenuous to claim that the city of Flint "had to" start using a poisonous supply of undrinkable water because someone else was overcharging them. Drinkable water is one of the most basic of all civic necessities for urban populations in a developed society, arguably more important than things like police protection.

At the very least, someone should have pried loose the funds to either purchase water from elsewhere, or treat the Flint River's water so it would be potable.

[loomer]

Fun fact, they have not stopped demanding payments despite the fact the water is know to not be potable. Technically speaking Flint residents could be due 8-10 months worth of refunds since the water has been containment for almost a year now never mind the millions in medical fees for the kids who might be coming down with a bit of the old "developmentally disabled".

Don't forget mental anguish, cost of replacement drinking water, and legal fees.

If it's permitted under the relevant statutes, this also seems like one of the most cut and dry cases for punitive/exemplary damages to be imposed on the state. To knowingly create a situation where water becomes undrinkable, while charging for supply of potable water, is not just a breach of contract, it is a malicious, willful, and injurious one causing substantial risk of harm and economic loss that is so far outside the acceptable bounds of commercial conduct as to be unconscionable.

[Patroklos]

However, Patroklos, I think it is very disingenuous to claim that the city of Flint "had to" start using a poisonous supply of undrinkable water because someone else was overcharging them. Drinkable water is one of the most basic of all civic necessities for urban populations in a developed society, arguably more important than things like police

That's not exactly what I meant, but rather that there were forces compelling them to change. They could have chosen another course, buts it's not like Flint did any of this based on some ideological bent. They are broke, like Detroit style broke, and Republican or Democrat their water situation was going to change. It's a shame those in charge, then and now, chose the soecific courses they did.

The overall gist regarding the post I responded to, however, it blaming this on cost cutting is stupid. Decades of mismanagement is the root cause of this with cost cutting being the logical and entirely predictable follow on consequences. Pretending Republicans has anything to do with that is ridiculous.

[Simon_Jester]

I will say this in response.

Almost ANY cost that could possibly have been cut would have been a better choice for cutting than to skimp on making the city's drinking water drinkable. Especially given that the alternative for residents is to drink bottled beverages that are drastically more expensive to them, which is to say, to the very taxpayers whose money is being "saved" by making the water supply unfit for human consumption.

Now, the following characterization may well be unfair in your eyes, but I am coming to think there is some basis for it.

"Cost-cutting" is not in and of itself a Republican or a Democratic activity. However, when Republicans 'cut costs of government,' there is an almost uncanny tendency to choose cost-saving measures that will have major, direct, negative, immediate impact... on people who don't already have a lot of money.

To people who do not share the Republicans' priorities, this can create a sense of hostility and spite as the motives behind the aforesaid cost cuts. There is a sense that such people might support the idea of having a city buy cheap leaded drinking water, and of the city refusing to invest ~100 dollars a day on treating it so it would be drinkable, out of an active, reckless negligence. A sense that there is an almost depraved indifference to what is going to happen to people who are so lowly and poor and stupid that they have to drink tap water of all things.

So it acquires a sort of 'color' of "Republican cost-cutting," in that to people who have heard stories like this dozens of times and usually found a Republican at the root of it, they reflexively blame Republicans even though this time nearly everyone involved was a Democrat.

It is not factually correct to blame this incident on the Republicans. But it is the fruit of a reputation the Republican Party has worked long and hard to earn.

This is the party that will snatch the food stamps out of a starving person's hand, the party that will cancel the fire and rescue services and turn off the streetlights rather than raise taxes, the party that will violate federal law rather than organize a system to permit subsidized health insurance to go to the poor.

Why would anyone not expect them to be the party responsible for leaded low-cost drinking water?

[Patroklos]

Large city corruption is pretty much universally a Democratic thing. Especially urban cities. Even when the rarely lose a major city mayorship Demoxrats almost always maintain the city councils and othe subordinate bower bases. If you hear a story about city mismanagement and think anything but Democrat you have no understanding of Urban (the actual definition) politics.

[Channel72]

Large city corruption is pretty much universally a Democratic thing. Especially urban cities. Even when the rarely lose a major city mayorship Demoxrats almost always maintain the city councils and othe subordinate bower bases. If you hear a story about city mismanagement and think anything but Democrat you have no understanding of Urban (the actual definition) politics.

Yes, that is true. Look no further than hilariously corrupt mayors of Newark, NJ, who literally used Mafia-style intimidation tactics against political opponents. And of course Chicago is legendary for this.

[Simon_Jester]

Large city corruption is pretty much universally a Democratic thing. Especially urban cities. Even when the rarely lose a major city mayorship Demoxrats almost always maintain the city councils and othe subordinate bower bases. If you hear a story about city mismanagement and think anything but Democrat you have no understanding of Urban (the actual definition) politics.

Large cities are run by Democrats because the voter-base votes Democrat.

The urban voter-base votes Democrat because at the federal level, the Republicans have basically set up a platform of "to hell with urban voters." It's a lot easier to get a farm subsidy out of the Republicans than it is to get a tenement subsidy, in other words.

This results in all the negative consequences of single-party rule (massive corruption chief among them). But when urban voters do vote Republican, or have Republican leadership pressed upon them against their will, they often end up suffering just as badly, just for different reasons.

The Democrats in a city government are corrupt and routinely waste the money that would otherwise be spent to improve the city's situation, because they get votes no matter what they do.

The Republicans, meanwhile, tend to go around actively rejecting the very idea of spending any money or doing anything to improve the city's situation, because they get more votes at the state and national level by complaining about the tax money wasted on "welfare queens" than they do by feeding eight-year-olds.

There are honorable exceptions to both rules, but this is exactly what you would expect to happen in a two-party system that becomes polarized after one of the major parties decides it doesn't need to worry about getting support from major demographics that happen to be minorities and/or hard to appease. The party that still has those demographics gets complacent, the party that dropped them becomes so polarized that it can never really claim to represent them again.
_________________________________

In this case, cut-to-the-bone costs that screw over local populations are being (inappropriately) associated only with Republicans, because of the recent trend of "emergency managers" and "CEOs" taking over such cities often at the behest of Republican state governors and legislatures.

Here, Republicans are not responsible for this particular issue... but the Republicans have spent thirty years associating themselves with the idea of saving money with 'lean, mean' government services, and no one should be shocked if they get falsely accused now and then.

[Flagg]

If anyone thinks these poor people will actually receive refunds or reparations, you need to be more cynical. The government always finds a way to backdoor it's way some immunity for itself or just outright shrugs and says "tough shit" with the highest courts blessing.

Virtually all of my health issues from the bi-polar/depression to the fucked up and additional internal organs are pretty much a proven direct result of being a first generation "Agent Orange Baby" (a defoliant used in the Vietnam War, try not to look up pictures of "agent orange babies" unless you think your lunch was so good you'd like to taste it coming up). See, one of the side effects (and it's much worse for the people in Vietnam) of being exposed to (aka drenched in, like US soldiers and the entire rural population of Vietnam) Agent Orange is that it damages your DNA, thus any children you helped make after being exposed are born with damaged DNA. It's worse in Vietnam because both parents were exposed. But here's the really shitty part, the DNA of the offspring is also degraded, thus if/when they help make a baby they pass their even more damaged DNA onto the second generation, and on and on it goes.

You know what the compensation my mother (the one who raised me by herself) got for having to take care of a kid with the issues I had as a child? NOTHING. Just like the fine residents who got/are getting fucked by the State of Michigan will get. And assuming they do win, they'll essentially be getting paid restitution with their own tax dollars.

[SAMAS]

That depends on how close their next election cycle is.