Heres's the PD story:
and my thoughts:
A.) Cleveland Water has to be one of the worst-run Cleveland-based regional entities. Bad billing, inconsistent, poor management
B.) Westlake residents are faced with ever-increasing rates to cover (A.), while still having to pay again to make water system infrastructure improvements in their city which Cleveland refuses to cover.In essence, they pay twice.
C.) Cleveland does not deny either fact (A.) or (B.)but using as one of their arguments that Westlake should stay in Cleveland Water to be fair to Cleveland and the other communities who will have to pay even higher rates to cover both (A.) and the decreased user base caused by Westlake's leaving.
D.) You are on Westlake Council, elected to serve Westlake residents (as I am in my city.) You can either vote to continue (B.) and support the region, even thoughit will cost your constiuents more, or to stop the cycle to go to over to Avon water.
"Regionalism" says Westlake taxpayers should pay higher water rates and taxes to maintain the system because they can "afford it" and to be "fair." As is other existing and potential regional arrangements, this one is stacked against Westlake and in favor of the urban area Celveland- they have no input on mamgement or rates. It is, after all, Celveland's Water system. Westlake is merely the water customer, lucky enough in this case to have another water option.
I think I have summarized the situation --am I missing a point?
I am afraid that like most regionalism discussions, this one will not be decided by voters, but by a judge.
Posted Jan 25, 2012