Residential water customers of our City of St Augustine get hit thrice, right between the eyes.
First, our city water rates are double what they are in other jurisdictions for residential customers, the product of the City's favoritism toward businesses, like those owned by the people who signed Mayor JOSEPH LESTER BOLES' full-paw ad in yesterday's St. Augustine Record. Their water cannot be cut off if they have an automatic sprinkler system, without the City suing them and going to court first. GEOFFREY DOBSON got the State Attorney General to so opine she he was City Attorney.
Second, residents of West Augustine outside city limits pay an extra 25%.
Third, our city collected more than $36,808 in the last fiscal year on disconnect/reconnect fees, mostly from residents (only a few businesses get disconnected).
Our city profits from average residents by charging us doubly high rates, then laughs all the bank with enough money in disconnect/reconnect charges each year to spend on flummery, dupery, nincompoopery, waste, fraud, abuse, misfeasance and nonfeasance.
It's our money.
Our water rates are unconstitutional, not even based on a water rate study. Ever. We shall overcome. 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides the remedy if the CIty won't restructure its rates. If a business can't have its water shut off without a lawsuit, it violates Equal Protection to cut off water to residents. Water is essential to life and should not be cut off without a court order. What do you reckon?
FLORIDA State Attorney General Opinion Number: AGO 95-26
Date: April 6, 1995
Subject: Disconnect/water service would disable fire protection
Mr. Geoffrey B. Dobson
St. Augustine City Attorney
66 Cuna Street, Suite B
St. Augustine, Florida 32084
RE: FIRE SAFETY–MUNICIPALITIES--PUBLIC UTILITIES--municipality may not disconnect water service, absent a court order, such that preengineered fire protection system would be disabled. s. 633.171, F.S.
Dear Mr. Dobson:
You ask substantially the following question:
Does section 633.171(2)(a), Florida Statutes, preclude a city from disconnecting water service to a consumer for nonpayment when the building to which service is provided has a preengineered fire protection system?
In sum:
Section 633.171(2)(a), Florida Statutes, operates to preclude a city, absent a court order, from disconnecting water service to a preengineered fire protection system required by statute or rule when to do so would render such system inoperative.
You state that the City of St. Augustine owns the local water utility service. Pursuant to section 180.13, Florida Statutes, the governing body of a municipality may establish just and equitable rates to be paid to the municipality for the use of a utility by each person, firm or corporation whose premises are served. If the charges are not paid when due, the municipality may recover such sums by suit in a court having jurisdiction in the municipality or by discontinuance of the service until the delinquent charges for the service are paid.[1] There is some question, however, whether the city may discontinue water service to delinquent customers who have preengineered fire protection systems that are required by law or rule.
It has been judicially recognized that a municipality may discontinue water services furnished by the city when the consumer fails to pay the water bill.[2] As noted above, the Legislature has authorized such action when a person using a public utility fails to pay the charges when due.
Section 633.171(2)(a), Florida Statutes, however, provides:
"(2) It shall constitute a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, to intentionally or willfully:
(a) Render a fire extinguisher or preengineered system required by statute or by rule inoperative except during such time as said extinguisher or preengineered system is being serviced, tested, repaired, or recharged, except pursuant to court order."
The statute clearly makes it a criminal offense to disconnect the water supply to a required preengineered fire protection system such that the system is rendered inoperable, unless by order of a court. Where the Legislature has set forth exceptions to the operation of a statute, no others may be inferred.[3] In this instance, absent a court order, disconnection of water that renders a preengineered fire protection service inoperable could subject the municipality to criminal sanctions. There is no statutory or judicial exemption for municipally owned water systems from the provisions of the statute. Thus, a municipally owned water utility may not, absent a court order, disconnect the water supply to a preengineered fire protection system that is required by law or rule such that the system is rendered inoperable without subjecting itself to the criminal liability imposed in section 633.171(2)(a), Florida Statutes.[4]
An example of a fire protection system that is required by statute is contained in section 553.895, Florida Statutes. That statute states:
"Except for single-family and two-family dwellings, any building which is of three stories or more and for which the construction is let after January 1, 1994, regardless of occupancy classification and including any building which is subject to s. 509.215, shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system installed in compliance with the provisions of chapter 633 and the rules and codes adopted pursuant thereto."[5]
Section 553.895(2), Florida Statutes, has expansive coverage in requiring automatic sprinkler systems in practically all buildings with three or more stories, except for those that are a single-family or two-family dwelling.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that a municipality is subject to section 633.171(2)(a), Florida Statutes, if, without a court order, it discontinues water service to a structure that has a preengineered fire protection system that is rendered inoperable by such action.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth
Attorney General
RAB/tls
--------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Section 180.13(2), Fla. Stat. (1993).
[2] See State v. City of Miami, 27 So. 2d 118, 126 (Fla. 1946).
[3] See Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. 1952).
[4] See Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799, 805 (Fla. 1944) (legislative direction as to how a thing shall be done is, in effect, a prohibition against its being done in any other way).
[5] Section 553.895(2), Fla. Stat. (1993).
Water is also essential to public safety. When toilets don't flush and dishes go unwashed health hazards are created. Those less fortunate individuals who have their water shut off are then lacking in personal hygiene and cleanliness amenities and find themselves living in gross excessive; bacteria, viruses, insects, rats, etc., explosions. Kids get sick and they and their parents still must go and mix among the general populace. We then all mingle in the commons (what little is left of those commons). Many of them may work as food servers and food preparers in local restaurants; that don't pay enough to barely keep the water on in good times. Every time I hear that we won't have problems with the ebola virus because we are a nation that has a good sanitary infrastructure I get pissed. In the past we did, in the present, with this kind of Xtrevilist "austerity" (read intentional herd thinning here) Dickens scrooge thinking that has changed, the sanitary infrastructure is suffering. The intentionally created homeless population and the burgeoning of tent cities all over Scamerica is another example of this societally debilitating thinking and contributes to greater risk for all.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction made in favoring business for continued water service is another example of our two tier scam 'rule of law' as selectively written and selectively enforced burden shifting baloney. Many heads up residents, have 'engineeered' and installed extra spigots and hoses to be used in the event of fire in their own homes. Many times a building is saved by this simple protective installation of extra hoses. With the water shut off in just one home a whole neighborhood could be jeopardized.
Tourism also has a major impact on water use as it burden shifts the costs to residents and workers as the tourist factory processes three to six million of THEIR customers a year. Cutting tourism by 5% and replacing it with lower community impact industry could save millions of gallons of water per year, especially if we got rid of a lot of the state alcohol and tobacco cartel booze joints where bloated and buzzed up customers are running to toilets every five minutes at the end of the evening and flushing like there is no tomorrow.
The burden shifting is all part of the pigdebt. [Pigdebt is the total amount of recompense due to those who have been harmed, financially, physically, and emotionally, by the willful and intentional immoral usurpation of the 'rule of law' by Xtrevilist pigs for selfish gain.]
I agree, we need a good top to bottom water audit.